Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive369

Purge something please

I just tweaked T:DYK. In the past, I believe there was a notice somewhere that reminded us to purge something after editing a Main Page component, but I didn't see the notice, and I can't remember what should be purged. Could someone do it for me? The Main Page doesn't have anything purge-related in its edit notice, and I assume purging the DYK queues and prep areas (the only purge-related items in DYK's edit notice) won't help with whatever I needed. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

What I'm seeing on the main page right now reflects the edit you made, so I think we're good. If you ever feel the need to purge a page and there's no convenient link, you can go to Special:Purge and copy-paste the page title into the box. RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Nyttend There's a link to purge the main page on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors in the toolbox on the right. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Possible offensive comments?

It seems that some comments at Talk:Rambo: Last Blood have digressed beyond editing, [1], [2]. I didn't know whether to revert or not, so I brought it here to bring to an admin's attention. Armegon (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think User:151.237.110.33 might be block evasion by User:89.215.227.67 as they both geolocate to Bulgaria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Discussions closed. That's way over the line for what talk pages are for. If behaviour continues, consider this my support for dropping some counter-disruption blocks. Otherwise, this seems to be a fairly localized incident from that talk page's history. Note that 89.215.227.67 (talk · contribs) has a different talk page MO, which seems to be Wikignoming italicized movie titles in people's comments. Possibly just a bit harmlessly obsessive were it on its own, but it's coupled with a history of bad article editing. Uncle G (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Codex Special:Block page Feedback Needed

Hello Admins,

As CommTech prepares to fulfil the Multiblocks wish, we are redesigning the Special:Block page using Codex. You are invited to test a prototype of the refreshed block page in a moderated user test and give us feedback. If you would like to join the test, please sign up on the Multiblocks project talk page. Counting on your support. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

STei (WMF), I am not really interested in the test, but I do want to say as an administrator that this will be a very useful enhancement of the administrator's toolkit, and I look forward to its implementation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Same here! Bishonen | tålk 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC).

@Bishonen and @Cullen328 thank you for the positive comments. If you change your minds, please let me know :D. Have a good week you all and thank you for protecting our projects! –– STei (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Issue with warning on the Jimbo Wales user page in dark mode

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 User:Jimbo_Wales page there is a warning box that doesn't show up properly if the user is in dark mode, on account of the text being the same color as the background. since I wasn't Sure how to fix the problem and the talk page was semi protected, I came here. I am aware that the dark mode feature is in beta and that this might not be a problem for admins necessarily. if there is another place better suited for a problem like this, i would appreciate if I could be told where. 67.20.1.4 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 67.20.1.4,

For technical questions (and this sounds like one), WP:VPT is a good place to go. This isn't a really an issue that involves the admin community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. thanks! 67.20.1.4 (talk) 19:29, 17 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.

Elias Hossain(s)

There was a bit of a mess which I think (?) I've sorted out, but wanted to flag up here just in case.

Elias Hossain had a redir to Elias Hossain (disambiguation), which dabs between Elias Hossain (journalist) and Elias Hossain (footballer).

An hour ago, Darkonexdo requested G7 on Elias Hossain (journalist), which I declined because they're not the only or even the main author of it. They then copypaste moved the content from there to Elias Hossain, replacing the redir that was there, effectively making the journalist the primary topic for this term.

I've no idea which, if either, is the actual primary topic, but I assumed there was a reason why that term was pointing to the dab page. Also, the copypaste obviously would have lost the edit history. So I reverted things back to how they were.

In doing all that, I was reminded that there's also Draft:Elias Hossain (journalist), declined at AfC on the basis of the main space article. But that draft dates back to Jan 14th, whereas the main space one seems to have been created only on the 25th. At least one editor has edited both versions, so there may have been some copying across (I haven't checked), but it wasn't a straight copypaste move at least. I guess my question is, is there any (easy) way of determining if any of the history from the draft needs merging with the published article? And/or does anyone spot anything I've missed?

Finally, just to say that this subject has had a bit of a troubled genesis in more ways than one, so I wouldn't be surprised if some interesting critters are found in the undergrowth. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There is also some confusing article creation and page moving around Mohammad Elias (educator), Mohammad Elias, Elias Hossainn, Imtiyaz Ahmed (actor), Imtiaz Ahmed (actor) and Imtiaz Ahmad. Mostly deleted through CSD but also an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imtiaz Ahmed (actor). I think this is all about usurping page titles for the preferred article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the discussion – Doublegrazing asked for my input since I'm one of the editors who have been dealing with some of the confusion created by all the cut-and-pasting and renaming of pages. I agree with Liz, I'm sure these are attempts to promote people by creating articles about them and making those articles the main titles. Imtiaz Ahmad looks like an exception, that seems to be a genuinely notable person as opposed to the actor. Perhaps it's step one in a new attempt to shoehorn an article about the actor into mainspace.

And now Darkonexdo has moved their user page and talk page to User:Hackone, an unregistered user name. Another warning has been posted to User talk:Darkonexdo since, so it needs an admin to untangle that. --bonadea contributions talk 18:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

...and it is not the first time this has happened, and the user was warned twice; as with almost all their previous warnings, their only response was to remove the warning and say "Sorry". I count about ten instances in the history of their user talk page when they did exactly this. (When the user pages are moved back to the right place, my links in this post will probably break, it's all in the user talk page history.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• And they've now created Draft:Darkhackbd after attempting to create Imtiaz Ahmed (hacker) - which appears (a) to be something they made up one day and (b) themselves. Given the mess they made at Shariful Haque Dalim, the repeated page moves, shuffling of redirects, and this, and their all but complete lack of communication, along with the fact they were blocked before for "persistent removal of content" and just Wikibreaked the block away before resuming, I've blocked indef per WP:DE and WP:COMMUNICATE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Renamed user 4c13730314a79abe934a0b7a263f1187

Please remove rollback and PCR rights; the account is vanished and globally locked. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:AE

I know that most administrators have their own routine schedule of responsibilities they focus on but if you find yourself with some extra time this weekend, WP:AE could use some more eyes and help with closures.

Many thanks, in advance, as I know there are plenty of other demands for your time on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

5 closed now. There's 4 left, of which 1 looks closable, but I'll leave that for someone else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with closures, Tamzin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting circular move

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 created Delta Air Lines Flight 4813 but I typoed it. The correct title, for Delta Airlines Flight 4819, currently exists already. I am asking the admins to perform a circular move to replace the existing one with the typo which has more information. guninvalid (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you just merge your content to the correctly titled article? Then you can submit the typo'd title for deletion using G7 (author request). Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Because that removes author attribution. Also Delta Airlines Flight 4819 exists now so probably both of them should be redirected. guninvalid (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is the correct title? We cannot have two parallel articles (they are currently at Delta Connection Flight 4819 and Delta Air Lines Flight 4819). GiantSnowman 20:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources I've seen just call it Delta Flight 4819 or just Delta Flight. I suspect there's going to be a lot of mess for a while, so it's probably ripe for an admin to step in and clean up the dangling pages and just pick one. guninvalid (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's go with the Delta Connection Flight 4819 article, if it needs to be RMed then so be it. (currently at AFD so might all be moot). GiantSnowman 21:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I may have done things incorrectly as I'm a new Wikipedia editor and am still learning, but I modified the title to what it should be "Delta Connection Flight 4819" using the move tool.

Someone at some point redirected this page to Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 and I tried to update that pages title to "Delta Connection Flight 4819" but it gave me an error because the original page with that title had already existed.

So my thought was to undo the redirect and instead do the opposite and redirect the Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 page to the newly titled Delta Connection Flight 4819 page. Then I also copied the existing content over that added additional information.

My apologies if this was done incorrectly, but given the ongoing incident and mass amounts of edits I thought this was the best course of action given my knowledge and trying to get everyone focusing on the same wiki page for the incident. I didn't know this would cause a big issue with others upset by their page being the redirect. MSWDEV (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, everything above was done prior to my knowledge on this conversation. I think around 20:35 UTC? MSWDEV (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman What is the proper way to apply for move protection on the Delta Connection Flight 4819? Some users are moving it to "Delta Flight 4819" or similar titles when this flight was not operated by Delta Airlines. It was operated by Endeavor Air dba as Delta Connection

I'm not sure if only move protection is possible? MSWDEV (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Delta Connection flights are very commonly misconstrued as Delta Air Lines flights which are not the same. Regionally operated flights via Delta are operated by a regional carrier such as SkyWest Airlines or Endeavor Air in this case while doing business as Delta Connection. These flights are not directly operated by Delta Air Lines MSWDEV (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? Preciseness is not the only, or the most important, criteria for choosing an article title. The article talk page is the proper place to discuss its title. If a consensus does not easily arise on the talk page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (which does not include bringing it here). Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 01:39, 18 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.

CBAN appeal - Roxy the Dog

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.

---

(From talk page) It has been about eighteen months since I received a WP:CBAN, here. From my pov, it is awful reading, outlining a litany of Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behaviour by myself. The closing Admin suggested a discussion with User:Sideswipe9th would be essential in helping me understand how my behaviour affected people, and I have tried to initiate a discussion, which SS responded to. A serious problem with medication supply has prevented Sideswipe from editing for quite some time, and no substantive discussion has taken place. See my Talk page archive there

Two thoughts occur to me over this. Firstly I apologised profusely at the time, and will be ashamed of that stuff for a long long time, and I stand by those apologies now. Secondly, I hope that being unable to discuss things with Sideswipe should not prejudice the outcome of my appeal. However, in a surprising and generous unexpected post [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]] volunteered to stand in for Sideswipe. This discussion has been taking place on my Talk page in recent days, and I thank participants, who have been quite frank and generous toward me.

I know how to behave - I would like the community to accept that and allow me to demonstrate it. I feel that the time has come to ask the community to rescind my ban. To be clear, I have no desire to edit article space in the GENSEX area, and wont do so. If, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment, it will be with politeness and empathy.

Give me some rope. Thanks. Roxy the dog 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Roxy the dog 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support lifting this ban. The discussion on Roxy's talk page shows that he's been willing to reflect on what he did and how it affected other people, and to take other people's perspective into consideration. I don't think continuing the ban serves any useful purpose. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Appeal comes across as genuinely reflective and remorseful, and it appears the sanction has served its purpose. The only caveat I'd add is that I cannot speak for anyone who felt wronged by anything that was said or done, and if they raise an objection then I may return to strike my !vote. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Excellent appeal, the achievement of self-knowledge can occasionally seem a rarity in these parts. Serial (speculates here) 14:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I appreciated reading the thoughtful conversation on Roxy's talk page, and commend YFNS for taking the time to drop science regarding some of the common fallacies that underpin transphobia. While Roxy and I still don't see entirely eye to eye on trans issues, that's hardly a deal breaker. What's important is that they've demonstrated a commitment to thinking through this fraught topic collaboratively, and in general to engaging with civility at the forefront of their mind going forward. Generalrelative (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, well-spoken and thoughtful request that shows reflection on the incidents. A read of the original discussion and subsequent interactions indicates a commitment to avoid the topic area and a more understanding approach when working with other editors. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support I've been helping out with explaining some appeal & editing basics to banned editors, when I came across this appeal. It looks like they're genuinely trying to understand and engage with other viewpoints, which is admirable and shows they're trying their best to work with others. The appeal is well written and thought out, so I asked if I could show my support as a non-admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support - An individual deserves a chance to prove themselves. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  And, of course, preventative; not punitive. Low likelihood of relapse. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Let the existing topic ban remain. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support I read the conversation on Roxy the dog's talk page the other day and thought "this is heading in the right direction". Glad to see a sincere, self-reflective appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• That's a solid unban request. I recall the gross "typical transgender hounding" type comments at the time, but apparently, I didn't participate in the ban discussion (I thought I did, but I don't find myself in the discussion, so I guess not). Anyway, the part they feel the most ashamed about is the part that bothered me the most, so I support unbanning, and I'll again commend User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist for taking the time to discuss this with RTD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to hear from User:El C who reviewed the community ban discussion and also consider a topic ban before considering an unblock. Please review the community ban discussion along with an unblock appeal.

I also don't know why you are discussing another Wikipedian's medication issues and I can't find an on-Wikipedia reference for this statement. Sideswipe9th hasn't edited since April 2024 and I think that comment is sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that wasn't needed, but it's in the second link in RTD's unban request above. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, your comment about El C makes me wonder whether it would also be appropriate to notify User:Maddy from Celeste, who made the previous ANI that resulted in the CBAN. I'm at least pinging them now. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• I can see this is an WP:1AM situation. While I'm not going to Oppose an unblock, I do have some misgivings. But given the support from editors like User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist who has worked with Roxy, I'm not going to derail this moving train. So, let's remember WP:ROPE and move forward. Besides considering a topic ban from GENSEX though, I do think that this request should be open for 48 hours before its inevitable close so it's clear it received its due, thoughtful consideration and wasn't rushed through. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, since you asked about Sideswipe9th, if you look at User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 13#Follow up, you will see that Sideswipe told Roxy about the health issues, so yes, there is a clear record of Sideswipe volunteering this information. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I see the subject was mentioned back in November 2024. I don't see the relevance of mentioning in an unblock request as if it is current reason why an editor isn't editing. A minor point, I just thought the reference was unnecessary. Moving on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Support I think he's shown solid growth, understanding, and remorse and believe sanctions should be preventative not punative. There are some extra parts I wish he'd included in his appeal, but that's on me for not discussing them when he was drafting it as it's been a busy few days. I'd strongly recommend, but not require, he consider himself under a voluntary GENSEX TBAN for at least a year as if he feel[s] the need to comment on GENSEX the most polite/empathetic thing to do for the time being would be not to for a while / only comment on the least controversial articles / discussions. That being said, welcome back Roxy, and you can always still ping/email me if you want to discuss / learn about anything! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is precisely what I look for in an appeal. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a really good unblock request. Though if they are volunteering to step away from the topic area, I would suggest an official topic ban from GENSEX. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

I have a history with Roxy and have interacted with him when I was a teenager, so to me he is kinda a teacher figure to me.

Other older contributors I have interacted with like User:Tgeorgescu are viewed as teachers to me. Tgeorgescu knows that Roxy has been a valuable contributor to the project.

Also Roxy’s apology appears genuine. So why not give him another chance.

I spend a few minutes to write this reply. I am currently in class, so please ping me if you plan to reply to this comment.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I notice a lot of people been talking about some topic ban.

To be honest I don’t feel the need to address that and I don’t wanna talk about it.CycoMa2 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry y’all but I don’t have the time to scroll through all the discussions on this.

I have school and my own articles to write.CycoMa2 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I just want to do more article writing for this project.CycoMa2 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement to participate in this discussion at all @CycoMa2 and definitely not continuing to post. Go write the articles you're interested in. Star Mississippi 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Support appears to be a well thought out request with backup to points they are making. No opinion on whether a t-ban is needed. Star Mississippi 19:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the post-initial close discussion on the extant topic ban, revising the latter part of my support to "No opinion whether the existing topic ban is still needed. I imagine that would need to be appealed separately, but am not positive." Star Mississippi 02:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a unilateral AE sanction that's more than a year old, so it can be lifted (or narrowed, or broadened) by any uninvolved admin at this point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Damn it, Tamzin, I think you might be right here, Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Duration of restrictions. So, there would have to be consideration whether to reimpose some kind of topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: No, the un-CBAN wouldn't automatically lift the TBAN or anything. I'm just answering Star's question as to whether there are separate appeals rules for it, to which the answer is: yes, but in the direction of appeal being a lower standard, not higher. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I thought I found the point you were making in policy but now your recent comment has me questioning if this topic ban expiration after 1 year is the point you were trying to make. I'll leave this to admins who are more policy wonks than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, to clarify, per WP:CTOP, a CTOP sanction imposed by an individual admin can only be lifted by clear AE or AN consensus in its first year of existence, but after that can be lifted by any admin. So this sanction hasn't expired, it just has gotten much easier to lift. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Tamzin for the explanation. @Liz glad I wasn't the only one confused. Star Mississippi 13:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Good request as per above. JayCubby 20:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per YFNS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support As someone who was in a similar situation here not too long ago. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per the others. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per everyone above. A valued member and a net-positive to the project. Their interactions prior to the unban request and the unban request after are both sincere, apologetic and honest. I see no reason for Roxy to remain blocked. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, and I'm so very happy to see that I'm far from the only person here who feels that way. I, too, am convinced of the sincerity of the appeal, and I, too, note that we do not often see that amount of demonstrated self-awareness in appeal requests. Roxy has been very helpful in one of the areas where I edit, trying to keep POV fringe out of our medical and scientific pages, and I'm sure that he can be helpful there once more. He knows his limitations, has acknowledged explicitly that there is an element of "ROPE" in his appeal, and I think the community can feel confident about granting this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Discussion re-opened. My apologies to voorts and Roxy. I have no real opinion on the merits of the unban or the close, but I do feel pretty strongly that re-opening it now is the right thing to do in the face of all this doubt. My suggestion would be to let it run for another 48 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  For posterity, here is the previous close (with strikethroughs from when it was modified):

  Roxy the dog is unbanned by the community. There is a clear consensus that his apologies and recent civil interactions are entirely sincere. Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop. Roxy has stated that he ha[s] no desire to edit article space in the GENSEX area, and [won't] do so. If, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment, it will be with politeness and empathy. (emphasis added). The community has determined that those promises, as well as Roxy's growth and commitment to civil discussion, are sufficient to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Roxy is encouraged to avoid GENSEX entirely for several months.

  voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support what seems like the platonic ideal of a unban request. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 16 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.

Discussion on the previous close

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.

---

• Note: If someone has an objection to the unban as is and wants me to reopen the discussion I will do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• I just want to go on the record and say this discussion was closed too soon. Not open even for 24 hours. If you disagree, please read the original CBAN discussion. That's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Roxy has a topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Individual sanctions (GENSEX) and here is the notice User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. Is this still in force, voorts? I'd ask User:Courcelles but they haven't edited in a few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say clearly yes. It doesn't seem like Courcelles ever revoked it or another admin with their permission. It was mentioned in the cban discussion as still being in effect. Neither of these discussions would seem to have revoked it, it wasn't even mentioned above AFAICT, so even putting aside it didn't use the CTOP template, I don't see how you can have consensus to revoked it when it wasn't mentioned. And the cban discussion seems to have resulted in a separate remedy distinct from CTOP I mean it was in ANI so not even the right place to deal amend a CTOP sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually since it's been over a year I don't think Courcelles permission would be needed for any adjin modify it. Still needs an admin to clearly say they're removing it though which would include modifying the log. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Liz. I have no problem with closing a discussion "too fast" when it's to a user's favor (in this case unbanning them). However, the idea that Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop. after 16 hours is not an accurate reading of how the community works. It is not an accident that community bans must normally be open 72 hours - things can swing. I would ask Voorts to consider striking that part of his close. I'm happy that there is consensus to bring Roxy back to the community but I do think a fair chance - on a weekend no less - for people with concerns to have a chance to express them is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's particularly problematic; it's just an exercise in paperwork. As with most of our discussions, consensus is formed by a (well argued) majority addressing and overturning a previous consensus. Since the extant topic bans were not raised in this discussion, they have not been overturned by consensus, and must stand. So all we need to do is adjust this close to reflect that not only was there no consensus to impose a new TB, there was, by default, no consensus to lift the previous one. Adjust the log to reflect this and inform RtD that, unfortunately, his voluntary promises will not be required at this time, as they are still under the same restrictions they were before the Cban.

  As far as the discussion not being open long enough, I can find nothing in WP:CBAN or WP:UNBAN that mandates a minimum opening period for ban appeals. Presumably it will require a well-publicized RfC to effect the necessary policy change. On the merits though, while it could have been held open longer, per WP:NOTBURO, it is common place for discussions to be closed when an overwhelming consensus appears. If it was sparsely attended, of course, it would have been very wrong to close it too soon. But it was not sparsely attended. The last 13 unban appeals of any vintage on this page attracted 12, 4/5, 5, 4, 13, 6, 25, 9, 16, 6, 5, 5, and 7 participants. Only the (very!) high profile Sander v. Ginkel case attracted more participation, and that failed. So in fact RtD's appeal is the most well attended successful appeal over the last month, at over double the average participation of 8/9 attendees. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've struck that part of the close about the TBAN because apparently one is still in place. I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer. Liz isn't proposing a topic ban, Barkeep isn't proposing a topic ban, and the few editors who mentioned that one might be needed didn't even condition their support for an unban on imposing one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I want to note for the record that 1) I think it was closed too early and 2) I did not like being the only openly trans editor who voted. I stand by my vote, but don't speak for all trans editors. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  "I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer." is a moot point, for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate... A discussion less than that can not come to a clear community consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  As @Fortuna imperatrix mundi noted, 20 people responded in less than 24 hours, far more than all but one of the recent ban appeals here. If someone has a serious objection, I'd be happy to reopen the discussion. I understand that various editors think I jumped the gun here. I was applying SNOW in good faith in closing the discussion, but lesson learned for the future. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think its a question of how many people responded, for me its a question of how many people had the opportunity to respond. I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. WP:CBAN states that "For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours." If we're going to set any limits, it should be at 24 hours, but I'm generally opposed to limiting the scope of IAR closes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that you violated policy and guideline, I'm saying that you did not meet intangible community expectations (which is why you have a whole bunch of editors complaining). You don't have to be so defensive about this, nobody is questioning your good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was just responding to your point about 48 vs. 24 hours, not trying to further defend myself. My point was that I think that if we're going to have any kind of limit going forward, it should be 24 to align with CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back @Voorts @Fortuna imperatrix mundi should language be added, it should match the 72 unless 24 that exists currently unless consensus emerges on different numbers. Otherwise the disconnect is odd.

  Noting here as I did on voorts' Talk, I'm concerned about the perception created by the early close even though voorts' close is fine by current guidelines. I did support both the lifting and the initial C-Ban. Star Mississippi 19:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your concern, but for that perception that I was trying to cut off discussion, I think editors would need to believe that I somehow want to give anti-trans editors a pass, which I think is belied at the very least by my recent close of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here wants to accuse you of having anything but the best intentions. This is just a matter of folks in the community feeling that the conversation had not yet had time to fully ripen. Generalrelative (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was responding to a point that SM made on my talk page that there could be a perception here that the discussion was closed early to avoid anyone adding opposes. SM expressly said they didn't believe that was the case. I'm merely saying here that I think that a reasonable editor who knows all of the relevant facts would not find that perception to be true. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have no issue with the close as lifting, but a quick close (in real world terms - since as discussed policy doesn't preclude) can look like "OK, enough weighed in, let's close this before there's dissent" especially with Roxy's long history here. We as a community are not good at constructing timing as was the issue in the Admin Recalls.

  I personally (editor, not admin) would say as a supporter, I have no concerns in this being reopened to see if the community-which may not be represented by a Friday night discussion when people may not be online - does feel it's time to lift the c-ban. Roxy has been c-banned for going on a year and a half, a day and a half won't matter in the long term for discussion. Star Mississippi 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: I understand your point, and I agree that the perception of a fair process where dissent is allowed to be heard is important. My point is that if those perceptions are unreasonable as applied to this particular case, I don't think that's a very good objection to the process. In this case, I don't think that a reasonable editor who knows me would think that I closed this discussion to avoid dissent. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Makes sense all around. We'll see where this shakes out. Noting for clarity, I think this discussion is good and healthy. I think the discussion should be reopened but not strongly enough that I'm going to request it from someone who didn't !vote. Star Mississippi 19:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts: I !voted "support" above, wholeheartedly. But I share the misgivings articulated by others that the close was premature. As Horse Eye's Back emphasized, it's important to give the community a chance to weigh this over before pronouncing the matter settled –– I will add: especially given the inflammatory and hurtful nature of the comments that led to Roxy's CBAN in the first place. And as Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist said, it's important that she not be the only openly trans editor to have a chance to comment. I will therefore formally ask you to reverse your close for now, and give this the standard 72 hours. Generalrelative (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I will do so if someone comes forward with an objection to the unban as is. I will not reopen a discussion purely out of formality. That said, I've already said on my talk page that anyone can revert my close, so if you really find that necessary, notwithstanding that nobody here is proposing a topic ban at this time, go ahead. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Generalrelative: Could you please point to the policy basis for your suggestion of a standard 72 hours? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not here to debate you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, but you made an assertation, and you were asked to explain it. I'm not here to debate you is not an appropriate response. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  The request was directed to me and I've responded. I don't think Generalrelative is obligated to reply further. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  No Voorts, Generalrelative has requested a 72 hour discussion. This is a general discussion for the community, and it is unhealthy to discussions to make assertions and not justify them. And where does 72 hours come from anyway? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Literally right below this you are failing to justify an assertion... I asked you to justify your assertion at 19:34, you asked Generalrelative to justify their assertion at 19:41... Do you not see the problem here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Horse Eye's Back, it was originally Barkeep who brought up the 72 hour guideline for considering open community bans and I've found that Barkeep knows policy as well as just about anyone else on the project. Maybe he can find the passage where this is mandated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49@Liz @Horse Eye's Back I think it's a disconnect in language between the UNBAN and C-BAN which notes the 72 hours. It's my opinion they should align, but they don't currently. Star Mississippi 02:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The 72 hours is for closing a CBAN against someone. There is not - to my knowledge - any 72 hour requirement (or 24 hour snow requirement) for lifting a ban. Sorry for any confusion. My point there was to note that in community discussions for bans we've chosen to institute a time requirement to ensure that editors have a chance to weigh in because the initial grouping of editors to respond (especially in this case on a weekend night) may not be representative of all editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think an important point here is that most CBANs appeals are also discussing imposing sanctions. It's surely very rare that someone appeals a sanction without the community considering whether to impose a lesser one. Whenever this is the case, surely the 72 hours provision of WP:CBAN applies? No where does it say it doesn't apply when discussing imposing sanctions as a reduction of some stronger sanctions. This one clearly did involve imposing sanctions since Voorts themselves claimed there was no chance of consensus for a topic ban. Technically you could close the appeal of the site ban while keeping open the community topic ban discussion, but why would you? Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry it would be 24 hours not 72 since it won't involve a site ban. Frankly IMO an appeal naturally is also discussing keeping i.e. imposing the original sanction but I decided not to go there to avoid arguing the issue. The point is some minimum surely applies since ultimately you we're nearly always also discussing the possibility of imposing a new sanction even in an appeal. 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  ...for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate implies there's a number required. So for RtD's appeal more than double the average number of attendees was insufficient? In any case, we can argue the toss about 24 hours or 48 hours or even Another 48 Hours, but until one of these bunch of people complaining go and start the aforementioned policy-altering RfC, I don't see how this meta-discussion to an individual appeal can change anything now, and still less bind the hands of the next appeal at WP:AN, which will probably be attended by a handful of editors who will form a consensus to which no-one bats an eyelid. C'est la vie. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  How does it imply that? "sufficient opportunity" implies a prominent venue and decent length of time but I'm not seeing how it would imply that theres a number required (at least not a number of commenters, the only implied number is eyeballs). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I admit, I haven't read this entire discussion post-close, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a revert of the unbanning. To put it bluntly, how I see this, Roxy is a valued member of this editing community with lots of supporters but they have a complicated history on the project that involves appearances at ANI, an arbitration case and previous blocks. You can't review this unblock request as you would a discussion on an account that is a year old. You need to do some background checking and not rubber stamp the groundswell of support. That's the only point I have been trying to make.

  I think part of this, Voorts, is that you have been active here for a couple of years and so are not familiar with Roxy's history on the project. That's just an observation, not a criticism. I mean, longtimers refer to disputes from 15 years ago and I draw a blank on them so we all started somewhere over the last 23 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• As should be obvious, I'm a big supporter of Roxy, but I also feel the need to say some things about how this was closed. Like others here, I feel that it was a mistake (however well intended) to close the discussion this early. Among other things, I think it may result in there being a sort of asterisk on the unban, and that's terribly unfair to Roxy. Wikipedia works on discussion and consensus, and we should trust in that enough to allow the conventional 48 hours. That said, I feel very, very strongly that we should not even consider reversing the decision. That would be unspeakably unfair, to have a decision to unban, only to have the rug pulled out from under it. So this should stay, with lessons learned for future closes.

And I feel the need to say something more, as a matter of admin accountability. Voorts, you've kind of made yourself into the person who does a very large number of discussion closes, and I've noticed that you make closes that are sometimes found to be controversial, with this one really standing out in that regard. I don't want to escalate this, but I hope that you will voluntarily decide to step back from making closes for a while, and focus on other administrative tasks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of your view on some of my closes. Someone who does a lot of closes, particularly when discussions are well attended or are in controversial areas, is inevitably going to face disagreement with their assessments. That said, I am always willing to take on feedback, as I've done in this discussion by committing not to closing a community unban discussion this early again. I happen to disagree that, in this case, an early close was inappropriate, but I don't have to agree with community consensus to implement it. (I also don't think this close puts an asterisk on Roxy—20 editors unanimously supported this unblock!) If you're still planning to escalate this, you'll have to tell me what recent closes I've done have been improper, because I believe that I have only had one person challenge a close on my talk page since December. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The point is surely, that it was unanimous after barely 16 hours, but closing it meant we would never had known if there were editors planning to oppose but who didn't get a chance to express their opinion. That is what the asterisk would have been. Thankfully another admin has made the right decision to re-open. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Reading through the above, and the follow-up comments, I think that the closer might want to consider reverting their closure to let the discussion run longer. This comment is in no way a "support/oppose/whatever else" comment about the topic under discussion - I'm staying neutral on that - but merely as a reader of this page and thinking that perhaps this close was done too soon. In this case, I decided that, rather than revert the close outright myself, that I would prefer to politely ask to the closer to re-consider - and so I have. - jc37 00:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have already said that I would revert the closure if someone has an objection that they want to be added to the discussion. Otherwise, I have also said that anyone can feel free to revert my closure here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I understand. And sometimes, that's a way forward, to see in anyone else is sure enough of their read of consensus (or lack thereof) and would thus be willing to take ownership of the close. But in this case, I thought it might be worth suggesting that you take the opportunity to take ownership of your action and self-revert. I agree that that is not always appropriate - I have indeed said that to others myself about closes in the past - but in this case, I thought it appropriate to offer the suggestion to give you that opportunity, and so I did. What you do is of course up to you. - jc37 00:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I won't revert your close because I voted in favor of the original CBAN, but I do think it was premature. My view at the time, which hasn't changed, is that it's important for our transgender editors to feel safe. I note Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's comment above about being the only openly transgender editor who participated. I'd feel better about the unban if more of them had the opportunity to do so. There's no hard-and-fast rule on how long a discussion stays open, but 24 hours probably isn't long enough for a community ban, especially when thoughtful comments keep coming in. Your close is good, just reverse yourself and wait a few days. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• To reiterate some of what I've said above: If anyone feels that it would be productive to reopen this discussion, they should feel free to do so. Consistent with my closing philosophy, I am declining to do so because, at this point, both discussions have been open for 40 hours and nobody has expressed a desire to oppose the unban or propse a topic ban. Going forward, I will not be closing unban discussions prior to the expiration of at least 72 hours, except ... where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious, consistent with the parallel provision for ban discussions in WP:CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think you (and others above) have a good point in that an UnBan discussion should mirror a Ban discussion in its minimum length requirements prior to closing. - jc37 01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion has been reopened by asilvering. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I support this discussion reopening and running for at least 24 more hours from the time of reopening. Does that sound fair? That's not 72 hours but it's a decent amount of time. At this point, I think a lot more editors have heard about this discussion and are aware that it's occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe you shouldn't make closes until you can interact with mild but widespread critiscism in a manner other than stonewalling. If this is your philosophy then rewrite it... It isn't consistent with community expectations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's not stonewalling to decline to reopen a discussion, particularly when I said about half a dozen times that anyone could undo my close. My closing philosophy is consistent with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which says we generally shouldn't reopen discussions when nobody is asking to present further comments in the discussion. As for the criticism, I've literally capitulated to what you and other editors want from these kinds of discussions going forward (i.e., no more early closes)—notwithstanding my personal disagreement with that view. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  For context, I presume this is the aspect of my closing philosophy that you find objectionable:

  Finally, if an editor believes that my close is incorrect, I am always open to discussing it. I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments. If I am not persuaded that I was wrong or by the new arguments, I will encourage the challenging editor to open a closure review at AN.

  If refusing to reopen a discussion or overturn one's close is [in]consistent with community expectations, then you'll have to rewrite CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:VOLUNTEER: "You are never required to take any action or post any edit that you personally disagree with. Even if there is a clear consensus against your view, the most you can be required to do is to let others take the actions that they support" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  "I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments." seems overly narrow when "Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review: ... if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion." is part of Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  That bolded part needs to be read alongside the following clause, which makes clear that it's referring to multiple editors who have something new to say.Otherwise, if a dozen people came to my talk page and said "you closed this RfC that I didn't participate in and have no intention of participating in, but I'd like you to reopen it", then I'd have to reopen that RfC. That is absurd. This situation isn't exactly analogous, but nobody in the post-close discussion asked to present additional views in the original discussion, and nobody new came to this post-close discussion—despite it being immediately below the old one—to ask to "bring forth a compelling new perspective". voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is the word "or" in between it and the following clause... That means that the following clause has no impact on it. Is it a normal experience for you to a dozen people came to your talk page to make such a complaint? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think we should read PAGs in pari materia. And no, I was using that as a hypothetical. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  We are, it says "or" not "and" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  People were asking to present further comments in the discussion, that is a different standard than those comments changing the outcome of the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, editors were asking that others be allowed to comment in the discussion. None of those other editors showed up to ask to comment in the discussion, nor has anyone commented in the discussion since it's been reopened for 16+ hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Its weird to comment now because of this whole thing but for example I turned up here to comment a qualified support. Commenting now would feel weirdly gravedancy, gratuitous, disrespectful to you, like I wanted to rub it in or something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  This got pretty messy, so it obviously wasn't 100% optimal in hindsight, but I just want to "go on record" (whatever that means) that I think the original close was slightly rushed, but not unreasonable, and I certainly don't think you're stonewalling. Others obviously disagree, but I don't want you to think it's unanimous. The main takeaway here is: Never interfere with the opportunity for Wikipedians to argue with each other. That is what we love the most about this place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The second takeaway is Never expect Wikipedia to do things the easy way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  When this many people, here and on your talk page, are like hey your close wasn't great, please consider reopening. Just do that instead of arguing that you are right. That is half the trouble here, its kind of a WP:1AM and a Laws of holes issue. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think Voorts has gotten the strong message to take more care with discussion closures, even when they seem unanimous, and to consider all possible aspects of a case when closing a discussion on serious issues like a community unban and to have a very good reason for closing one early. Is this discussion serving any more purpose by staying open at this point? And I say this as a person who kind of started it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. Could someone please close this? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 16 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.

Something I've never done before...

If I need to request that an archived AN/I thread be un-archived as a result of new developments would I do that here, at AN/I, on the talk page of an admin or at some other location? Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: How recently was it archived? It may just be worth creating a new thread and linking to the previous discussion? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

[3] This is the archived thread I want to re-open. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd create a new post on ANI and provide a link to the older discussion unless it is exactly the very same issue as earlier this month. That's partially because I think the heading was inappropriate for BLP reasons. But not all folks would agree with me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. It is exactly the same edit war from the prior thread but I agree with you that the heading was inappropriate then (and remains so now). I created a new thread and linked the old one within it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Fake information about chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj

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 Wikipedia text contains highly controversial and likely false claims about Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, such as:

1. False allegations about his imprisonment by Shivaji Maharaj due to "sensual pleasures" or "violating a Brahmin woman."

2. Fake claim that Sambhaji defected to the Mughal Empire and fought against his father.

3. Unverified accusations regarding Maratha soldiers raping and selling people during the Goa invasion in 1683.

These statements appear historically inaccurate and misleading. Now Shivkanya chaitu (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Shivkanya chaitu and welcome to Wikipedia! These claims have been discussed before on the talk page of Sambhaji, which you can access by clicking here. You can also find a variety of sources here that support the first statement. For the second and third statement, you can easily verify their authenticity by accessing the references cited on the page. If you have reliable sources that are contradictory to the article, you are most welcome to discuss them at the talk page and explain how they support your claims. Thanks The AP (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor Although the talkpage is currently semi-protected and this account was made today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 19 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 assistance required for moving

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 Admins,

The page Rumel Ahmed is currently protected due to old logs, and I am unable to move it. However, the new page I created is valid and should replace the previous one. Please review the situation and allow the move.

~~~~ Jabiyan (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I do hope that the new page you're talking about isn't User:Jabiyan/sandbox, because that would just get deleted again. —Cryptic 11:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cryptic the draft in User:Jabiyan/sandbox is still being improved, and I am confident it will meet Wikipedia's guidelines once it's ready. However, the page "Rumel Ahmed" is still locked due to old logs. Could you please advise how to proceed with moving the page once it’s finalized?

Thank you! Jabiyan (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Fix it first, then ask the protecting admin, Discospinster. —Cryptic 11:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cryptic thank you Jabiyan (talk) 11:52, 19 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.

discussion

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 believe user:guninvalid is a sockpuppetry account of user:MSWDEV, so basically from my view of whats going on is that user:gunisinvalid was upset that his article wasn't correct and that i had created the correct article, later used his alt user:MSWDEV which mysteriously makes dozens of edits today which his last edit was on October 2024, he has then moved and redirected the page tons of times and has since got it back to his article. While i don't really mind having article authority being snatched i find it as really weird behaviour by him. Thanks! RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea who guninvalid is. I am an aviation geek who likes to write on Wikipedia occasionally and I do not appreciate the accusations.

I began editing on the first article I found regarding the ongoing incident, updated it to the correct title via the move tool. Someone then redirected the page to an incorrect titled page that has slightly more information. I was unable to rename the newly redirected page as the correct title already existed. So instead I undid the redirect, then redirected the incorrectly titled page to the correctly titled one and moved the content over MSWDEV (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't lying then fair enough, from the discussion above this user:guninvalid clearly wanted the article authorization which is clearly fine, I hope it made his day better that his hard work payed off doing that. have a great day. RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It's all good man, let's just focus on helping provide good information to the ongoing incident. MSWDEV (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

for sure! RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, you haven't notified either editor about this discussion as is mandatory. Secondly, use WP:SPI for this. GiantSnowman 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Also Gunisinvalid (talk · contribs) does not exist. GiantSnowman 21:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a typo, no need to be toxic. have a great day. RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No, not 'clearly' a typo. You've accused another editor of being a sock puppet, with no evidence, without notifying them, and you can't even get their name wrong. WP:BOOMERANG might apply soon. GiantSnowman 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes i am supposed to be a wikipedia master as if i didn't create my account less then a month ago. If it makes you feel really better to attack another editor then feel free to ban me for "accidentally misspelling his name" RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, @RobertOwens01, I must ask that you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines on assuming good faith. guninvalid (talk) 21:23, 17 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.

CFD backlog

Hi admins! There is a backlog at WP:CFD; some help clearing it would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions is helpful to view all outstanding discussions, and WP:CFD/AI has the closing instructions :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for closure review: Topic Ban of EMsmile

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: Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs)
• Archived AN/I discussion , followup discussion with closer

In the context of a sprawling discussion (which is mostly not relevant to the topic ban proposal so feel free to skim over it) I proposed a topic ban for EMsmile on January 19. The topic ban discussion started in this section and continued in this one.

The discussion was closed on February 9, 12.5 hours after Femke requested closure. By this time, 910 editors supported a topic ban and 2 opposed. The closer, without mentioning either the numbers or the quality of arguments as things he had considered, incorrectly claimed that the topic ban proposer (me) prefers voluntary restrictions. In both my comments and my bolded !vote, I supported a topic ban.

I do like the tone of the closure, just not the supervoting in it. I respectfully submit that this closure should be overturned to a clear consensus for a topic ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Overturn BADNAC -- (Involved) The closing statement simply mentioned the voluntary aspect, while completely leaving the TBAN unacknowledged, even though their was significant support for it. Furthermore, there were some people who were specifically against the voluntary option. The cited quotations seemed to be very supportive of EMsmiles, which was odd, given that was not the overall tone of the entire discussion -- and several quotes were misleading. And the rationale for closing was particularly bizarre, but it appears they have never closed a ANI discussion before. Add to this an closing editor who actively has a TBAN against them, and edits in the same subject areas -- makes further questionable. To me this seems like a clear cut BADNAC at minimum. While I agree with Clayoquot that it should be overturned, I'm not suggesting it needs to be overturned to TBAN, but rather simply overturned and reopened for an admin to properly evaluate and close. TiggerJay (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC) (Clarifying with !vote formatting, and parenthetical note about involved in ANI, but not in article itself 15:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC))

Reclose, possibly overturn. BADNAC - the closer is not an admin. Had there been clear consensus against a TBAN or a similar remedy, maybe this closure would have been acceptable, but this outcome is definitely not obvious from this discussion. On the other hand, finding consensus in favour of a TBAN (and there at least is a plausible case for this outcome in this discussion) would have required the user to apply admin-level tools, which the guy doesn't have access to. In effect, this restricts the non-admin user to the "no block" outcome.

IMHO as a general rule closers should only approach discussions they know they have no constraint, other than the discussion's content and direction of consensus, in imposing a certain outcome, because the closer should approach the discussion with an open mind and not by thinking "well, I'm not an admin but I do want to close a block discussion so I must close as no consensus/consensus against (so as to not trigger BADNAC). Hmmmm, I'll try to engineer a reason for either outcome". IMHO the technical constraint the user has must have impacted the closure rationale, but that's not a valid reason to get a different outcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether the closer is an admin or not is not a reason for challenging a close. For the record, the topic ban was proposed by a user (Clayoquot, the OP) with a conflict of interest, which they had never disclosed during or even after the ANI dispute. It is an obvious deviation from our COI policy. Clayoquot is mentioned here as one of the editors who help in the Wikipedian in residence project of the Global Systems institute, which has a clear association with the Solar radiation modification (SRM) article [4](the focus of the ANI discussion),

Our policy requires that COI editors disclose their COI in related discussion.

... you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic

Basically it’s a case filed by editors from one party in an attempt to shut up an editor from another party. If I were to redo my close, I probably won’t just say “Any further content disputes belong to article talk page”. I would close it again with no voluntary restrictions of EMsmile, and suggest a boomerang to the undisclosed COI editors in that thread.

What’s more, I am surprised and upset that my efforts to close it as a neutral editor has been misinterpreted with untrue claims that bordering on personal attacks as seen on my talk page. I knew nothing about SRM before I came across that discussion. I just hope that people can resolve their conflicts peacefully through civil discussion. The “fighting mentality” from long-term editors really disappointed me.

PS. I don’t think the closure should be challenged “solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin” WP:NAC. BTW, as others said in the ANI thread [5], lots of volunteer hours have been thrown in”One of the arguments against paid editors is that they take up too much volunteer time”, I’m reluntant to throw in more, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m reluctant to reply to the many untrue claims on my talk (WP:PAYTALK). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify the exactly who "the others" you are referring to above, with a exact quote you are referring to both in the above and in the closing statement, as the only place I see "volunteer hours" in this discussion is in the following statement by EMsmiles, not in context of the ANI discussion itself but rather their overall time they've spent editing WP itself I have worked on them in a Wikipedia-in-Residence type capacity with lots and lots of volunteer hours thrown in, too. Because I enjoy the work.[6], nor do I see "reluntant"(sic) nor "reluctant", nor "throw" anywhere else in the ANI discussion -- can you clarify where you're reading this and your interpretation thereof? TiggerJay (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking @Tiggerjay, my apologies, the quote should be ”One of the arguments against paid editors is that they take up too much volunteer time”; and “I’m reluntant to throw in more, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m reluctant to reply to the many untrue claims on my talk (WP:PAYTALK)” is my own comment/ opinion. I’ve corrected my comment above. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have not been involved in this discussion but I just want to provide some clarity with regards to your last comment. I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the GSI. Clayoquot has provided support to the Residency in an advisory role, and not on the content in the SRM article. SRM is listed as an article edited under this project in the reference above because User:Mhenryclimate chose to edit it at an editathon held in Feb 2023 as part of the residency program. Association with the GSI residency does not represent a COI for Clayoquot with regards to this current discussion on SRM. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@TatjanaClimate, thank you for weighing in with your personal opinion. IMHO, you are also an editor with a conflict of interest WRT the current discussion.

Further, re Clayoquot has provided support to the Residency in an advisory role, and not on the content in the SRM article. SRM is listed as an article edited under this project in the reference above

You may want to read more about the community’s view on COI,

If you have a close association with the subject of a Wikipedia article, and you wish to edit the article, you are bound by some restrictions. WP:COIE

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, BADNAC. My own words were also twisted in the closing statement, implying I supported voluntary restrictions. Did I miscount: I thought it was 10 vs 2 in favour of a TBAN? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Femke, I did not imply that you support voluntary restrictions. It’s your misinterpretation of my closing statement. I appreciate that you have disclosed in the ANI thread that you are involved as you have disagreement with EMsmile before. However, I’m really surprised that you didn’t recuse from that discussion after you stating your stance in your initial comment. It’s appropriate for an editor to recuse in that situation, *not to mention that* you are an administrator.

  Not only that you did not recuse, you push very hard on a topic ban proposal that was proposed in violation of our COI policy. Another point I want other editors to note is that, you are also mentioned in TatjanaClimate’s userpage as someone who has an association with the WIR Global Systems Institute project. You never mentioned this in the ANI thread, and you *didn’t* mention it here, too.

  PS. Re 10 vs 2, FYI, there were 26 editors in that discussion. Further, per WP:CLOSE: “Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You're implying I have a COI because I support Tatjana to organise edit-a-thons, where once, one participant decided to edit on the topic? That's tenuous, to say the least. But let uninvolved people discuss this further. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Femke, you're right it was 10 to 1. I corrected my statement above. W.r.t. the COI accusation what Femke said applies to me as well, i.e. it's absurd. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  10??? Including those involved/COI editors like you and Femke?

  And again, FYI, there were 26 editors in that discussion (not including me). Please stop trying to mislead people with irrelevant headcount/ consensus. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I stand by my statement that 10 editors supported a topic ban and 2 opposed. Did any of the remaining 14 editors comment on a topic ban? If yes, feel free to summarize what they said. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are free to stand by you own personal opinion. BTW, have you notified User:EMsmile about this discussion on their talk page? That’s what you, as the OP, should have done. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't notify her because this discussion is not about her actions. It's about your closure. But since you asked I will do so now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• BADNAC and was uninvolved in discussion/proposal - should be re-closed by an admin with a formal topic ban, which there is an obvious and clear consensus for. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Re clear consensus, you may want to read,

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:False_consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Procedurally_flawed_consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wrongful_consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sham_consensus

  --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, BADNAC (involved), cf. my comments here as to how the quotes used in the closure were misleading. Even if consensus isn't strictly determined by a headcount (especially in close situations), overwhelming numbers like this are certainly evidence of consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn This looks an awful lot like a supervote and one that did take a lot of editors' statements out of context. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Good close This was an ANI, not a RFC. As far as I am aware, judgement of the closer is OK to be exercised whereas that would be considered to be a supervote in an RFC. Particularly with limited participation and which was starting to look like a "stick" pursuit. It had gone stale and so didn't get new participation by others. It had also gotten complicated/ messy (and IMO somewhat moot) while going stale because the editor imposed voluntary restrictions on themselves midstream during the process. It had gone stale and archived and was unarchived by the same person who initiated this closure review. Also, with relation to the SRM article, they indicated that their PE arrangement (which they had declared) ended on Feb 17th. If reopened, would probably need a whole new restart with fresh eyes and a clear statement of what is being proposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an attempt at community consensus. I think that it was not possible to not do so in either direction. It became a stale, confused, limited participation walled garden and somewhat of a stick situation. Also there was a significant change in the situation mid-stream during the ANI. I think that the close was a pragmatic acknowledgement of this, and the wording in the close alluded to this. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment on the timeline. Almost all the participants in the tban discussion came after the voluntary restrictions were proposed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, obvious BADNAC. Their comments here (Basically it’s a case filed by editors from one party in an attempt to shut up an editor from another party) make it obvious that it was an attempt at a WP:SUPERVOTE, which, obviously, applies to all closures - the idea that anyone can just close any discussion at any time, with whatever outcome they like based on their personal opinions and with no regard for actual discussion, and then expect to have that outcome stick, is plainly absurd. This is sufficiently severe (and Dustfreeworld's doubling-down, above, sufficiently shocking, especially their fairly bizarre assertion that they are a neutral editor in the same breath that they make sweeping accusations that they tried to ram through with their supervote) that I would suggest opening a separate ANI thread to seek some sorts of sanctions against Dustfreeworld - at the bare minimum barring them from closing discussions going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, I disagree with you untrue claim that “an attempt at a WP:SUPERVOTE, which, obviously, applies to all closures - the idea that anyone can just close any discussion at any time, with whatever outcome they like based on their personal opinions” which is bordering on personal attacks, while you completely ignore the fact that there are at least two involved/COI editors in this (and the ANI) discussion and supporting them based on your own opinions. I ask that you strike your untrue claims. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Your personal belief that other editors in the dispute violated COI and WP:INVOLVED, and your personal opinion that this means that EMsmile was somehow protected from sanctions by this, does not relate to the consensus reached in the discussion at all; the fact that you continue to cite those things underlines the fact that your attempt at a closure was a deliberate WP:SUPERVOTE, which in turn underlines the fact that you have no business closing anything. Surely you can see the direction this discussion is going in? My strenuous advice to you would be to admit to your (glaring and serious) mistakes, acknowledge that it was a SUPERVOTE, apologize to the people involved, and commit to not closing discussions going forwards until you have a better grasp of policy; but if you continue to double-down instead I will, once this discussion is closed, obviously do what I said in my comment and seek a consensus on WP:AN to bar you from closing discussions in the future so this doesn't happen again. Closures are meant to be about assessing consensus, which you made no serious effort to do here and are making no effort to even pretend to have attempted in your responses; instead, you repeatedly recite arguments that, if you felt so strongly about, you ought to have made as a participant in the discussion the same as everyone else. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, I was closing the ANI discussion based on Wikipedia policy. Please review Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Policy:

  Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information … be written from a neutral point of view, as well as legal policies that require articles not violate copyright or be defamatory, are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine the cases in which policy must override the opinions of individual editors.

  Please drop your stick and stop defending those COI editors and strike your untrue claims, better yet, with an apology. I don’t want to see others being sanctioned for WP:PA just because they post a comment here. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• It's supposed to be an attempt at community consensus. I think that it was not possible to not do so in either direction because as I detailed in my post it became a stale, confused, limited participation walled garden and somewhat of a stick situation. Also there was a significant change in the situation mid-stream during the ANI. I think that the close was a pragmatic acknowledgement of this, and the wording in the close alluded to this. I think that the only alternative to that (if desired to pursue this further) would probably need a whole new restart with fresh eyes and a clear statement of what is being proposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn. The closing summary is not representative of the discussion, as it does not explicitly acknowledge any of the support for the topic ban found within the "Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile" subsection of the discussion, while the closing summary heavily quotes elements of the discussion that are perceived to be in opposition to the topic ban. Regarding Special:Diff/1276595267, if the closer felt that the consensus within the discussion was "False", "Procedurally flawed", "Wrongful", or a "Sham", the closer is still obligated to express this in the closing summary and explain why the consensus was discarded; not doing so makes the closure a supervote. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

While we are on the subject...

I didn't want to re-open this after the incredible length of the previous thread, but since we're here:

There is another issue here. Not so recent, but for years EM smile was blatantly canvassing people to make specific Wikipedai edits.

• Let's discuss which definition of "sanitation" we think is the most useful one? (and edit the Wikipedia article accordingly) is pretty blatant. So are these others:
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Just in case anyone is concerned about outing, it isn't. As I said above, none of this is particularly recent, but if it had been noted at the time, all of the other recent drama might have been prevented. This is absolutely blatant canvassing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The first link is suspicious -- saying, effectively, "let's all go make this article useful to us". As I clicked the next couple links, I don't see canvassing, though. I see someone consulting external experts to encourage them to edit or to suggest edits to improve an article. That's something many of us have done when editing articles that benefit from expertise (like many science topics). In this post, I see someone trying to convince an expert to contribute, using standard wiki-evangelist language you'd hear at an edit-a-thon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have undone my close. Please feel free to continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reopened. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

References (Request for closure review)

References

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.

Week-old revert-list request on genealogy sources

Could someone process User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#Genealogy? Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Added. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Rollback request

Could someone kindly revert all edits of 2604:3D09:96F:B800:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) between 18:06, 14 February 2025 (this edit) to now? The IP range has added a large number of non-defining categories with no explanation. I don't think they're doing it maliciously - no one has asked them not to do so until now - but it's too many edits for me to revert manually. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Pi.1415926535,

It looks like it is mainly User:2604:3D09:96F:B800:B8E6:4463:B4F0:EB9D. But Pi.1415926535, they don't even have a talk page yet, have you left any messages explaining why what they are doing is incorrect? It's one thing to rollback edits but without some effort at communication, they'll just continue to repeat this behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: I left a message at User talk:2604:3D09:96F:B800:E075:80C7:546:560F, the most recent IP, just before posting this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The big problem with IPv6 addresses is that they jump very often - it's within the /64 range most often, but it's still a different exact IP, and thus leaving messages is highly likely to go entirely unseen by the recipient because they'll be on a different address by the time a message is sent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP range has continued these incorrect category additions. Given the scale of the edits and the inability to communicate with them due to the dynamic IP, I'd like to request a mainspace block for the range (with a pointer to this discussion in hopes they will respond here) and reiterate the rollback request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked from mainspace for one week, and asked them to respond here both in the block message and the block log. They should see one of those next time they try to edit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any problems I've caused. I got the idea after looking at the page for the Lima LS-1200, which already had categories for the various railroads that they worked on, and so I decided to apply that to all other American diesels. I thought it was fair list them in whatever subcategory of "Locomotives by railway", that they fit in to. I'll remember not to do that again in the future. 2604:3D09:96F:B800:C5C6:AA5C:BE68:F85C (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've unblocked you (it was due to expire in 20 minutes anyway, but the unblock in the log will be useful.) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Why? What is wrong with the categorization they've been adding?

[13] [14] Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The edits I sampled were overcategorization because they were not about the locomotive, but about which lines it ran on. I reverted to get a status quo to have the discussion. However, I can go back and revert the ones that weren't about the lines, if there are no objections. I'll do that in about an hour from now if I don't hear otherwise. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

For the American locomotive classes, it was an issue of non-defining categories - use on a specific railroad is not a defining characteristic for broadly-used locomotive classes. The edits to non-American locomotives don't seem to have that problem; if they're correct (I don't have the subject knowledge to tell) then I have no objections to re-reverting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You know what, this is getting too complicated for a simple rollback. I'm going to undo my rollback completely, and you'll have to hash out what's correct and what's incorrect with other subject matter experts. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Oathauth-ui-general-help § Protected edit request on 12 February 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Oathauth-ui-general-help § Protected edit request on 12 February 2025. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Revdel

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, can you delete all this revisions (copyviol)? Thanks, regards. Smatteo499 (talk) 15:19, 19 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.

@Voorts: I have to say, requesting revdel of revisions spanning 16 pages seems like a perfectly cromulent use of this noticeboard, which is often used for miscellaneous bulk admin action requests. Your closure of this thread caused Smatteo to waste his time templating all of those pages, when if you'd left it open, any admin with massRevdel.js could have taken care of this in a matter of seconds. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Noted for the future Tamzin. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Article being reported to cyber police

• Sambhaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chhaava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discovered something while preparing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#In brief. I don't really understand what's going on but Indian media are reporting that some government officials are "reporting Wikipedia" to the Maharashtra state cyber police in connection to one of the articles listed above. More eyes on the article might be a good thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Sambhaji has been seeing a lot of activity, prompted no doubt by the release of the film Chhaava. Basically, people are objecting to the depiction of Sambhaji in our article. Both the article and article talk page are currently protected. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• A little background that might help:

  Sambhaji is a revered historical figure, and the film-makers were pressured about a scene where the character performed a Lezim. So the issue is that people have certain views of this person, which disagree with both the movie and with the English Wikipedia article, and Indian history books. (The other language articles are far less developed, and don't have the information in the first place; although there is one that does that the objectors have overlooked, because it is not a common language in India. And another, mr:संभाजी महाराज, is currently indefinitely semi-protected from roughly the time that this ruckus began.)

  There has been some oar-insertion by politicians, again not just with respect to Wikipedia. Some spoke out about the dance scene in the movie as well.

  It hasn't helped matters that many entertainment news outlets have run "Who was Sambhaji?" explainers over the past week, which haven't been (to put it kindly) good quality. India TV in particular ran an explainer that outright pointed to Jaswant Lal Mehta's Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 — a source that the English Wikipedia actually uses to support the point that the back-and-forth is about, and that even uses the exact words that people are objecting to — but that as you can see whilst pointing to Mehta said something very different to what J. L. Mehta in fact said. So in addition many people now have a false idea of what history says from their entertainment news.

  Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Verma, Sakshi (2025-02-14). "Who was Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj? Here's how history books describe Chhaava". India TV.
• "Makers Of 'Chhaava' To Remove 'Lezim' Dance Scene From Film After Row". NDTV News. 2025-01-25.

• @Uncle G, there's old news too, see India seeks to arrest US scholar from 2004. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Maharashtra cyber crime department has sent a letter to Wikipedia stating[15]:

content in question was "inciting communal hatred, as Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is highly revered in India". “This misinformation is causing unrest among his followers and could potentially lead to a law and order situation. Given the gravity of the situation and its potential impact if not addressed in a timely manner, you are hereby directed, under the powers vested in this office by the relevant laws and regulations, to remove the objectionable content and prevent its re-uploading in the future,”

- Ratnahastin (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Unless they also sent something similar to Chhaava's production company and distributor, I'm disinclined to believe Maharashtra's cyber crime department is going to do anything by demanding Wikipedia censor itself, considering the scene in the film is the main cause of the furore, and Wikipedia is collateral damage (from what I'm understanding). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was because the WP-article article differs from the narrative in the film, but maybe I misunderstood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Read what Uncle G wrote above about the filmmakers being questioned about a scene in the film where he performed a dance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but per Chhaava, that scene was in a trailer, but per objections removed from the actual film. And the film seems to be a hit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/maharashtra-cyber-seeks-removal-of-offensive-sambhaji-maharaj-content-on-wikipedia-101739972757721.html

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive369 on Twitter The notice said:

The notice was sent under section " 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and section 168 (Prevention of cognisable offences) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)."

(emphasis added)

79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act states:

"(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if-- (a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act; (b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner." https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=105#

Section 168 (Prevention of cognisable offences) states: "Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent, the commission of any cognizable offence" https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193066845/

The notice further said:

This notice is being served on you under section 79 (3) (b) of IT Act 2000 r/w the Information and Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, which makes you liable to be charged under section "85(2) of the Information Technology Act 2000".

(emphasis added)

Section 85(2) states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (i) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (ii) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." https://indiankanoon.org/doc/589974/

It seems they want Wikipedia to remove the information as it is an intermediary and if they don't they might lose their intermediary status and then action can be taken against the organisation itself and people associated with it. Similar thing happened when twitter lost its intermediary status and cases were filed against its head in India.

Twitter missed the deadline, according to the government, which said the company temporarily lost its intermediary status, making it briefly liable for the content posted on its platform. At least two cases related to content posted on Twitter during that period were filed against Twitter’s India head, Manish Maheshwari, and a lawyer filed a complaint against the company for “spreading communal hatred.”

https://www.wired.com/story/indias-government-wants-total-control-of-the-internet/

If Wikipedia loses its intermediary status because of this, how will it affect their ongoing lawsuit in the Delhi court? Pinging @Hako9 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If Wikipedia loses its intermediary status, it's time to pull out of India. There's only so much we can take before realizing we are in a censorship situation like China and Russia here. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW: Wikipedia has not published its transperancy reports for July-December 2024 https://transparency.wikimedia.org I wonder why. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I have some concerns regarding your account. While browsing X, I came across multiple posts that specifically mention your username, such as this and this. You may want to enhance your account security by using a strong password and enabling 2FA. The AP (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Read what Uncle G wrote above about the filmmakers being questioned about a scene in the film where he performed a dance. Not wishing to be flippant about these threats, but if I can see Uncle G perform a dance in Chhaava, I'll die happy. Is the movie coming to Sweden soon, or can I download it? Bishonen | tålk 17:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC).

Protection level at Talk:Sambhaji

As the section above notes, Sambhaji and its talk page Talk:Sambhaji are getting a lot of attention. We're getting a lot of emails about it at VTRS and because of the semi-protection of the talk page, they are unable to participate in any discussion, which would be the normal VTRS response. Can the protection be changed from semi to pending changes, I know that most of the contributions are unlikely to be positive but the apparent stifling of any discussion is not the best look for WP in a country where WP's reputation is already low. Nthep (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill is the admin who set the protection level. Rosguill, any thoughts? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

(e/c) Did you talk with @Rosguill: first? I believe this was done as an AE action, so an uninvolved admin can't just change the protection as a "bold" action. Seem like a good first step would be to see if Rosguill is willing to change it themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that protection is absolutely appropriate given the quality and tenor of edits that were coming in. New editors were repeatedly making the same vapid objections while completely failing to engage with the array of sources presented against them. The crux of the issue appears to be that these people believe the novel Chhaava by Shivaji Sawant and its film adaptation to be an authoritative source on history. I wouldn't be opposed to pending-changes protection, but it seems like that's apparently not an option. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I imagine most of these editors made their one edit and then never returned? It sounds like the same crap as happened at Sushant Singh Rajput and its talk page around the time he was found hanged in his flat (and for the next two years after). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think pending changes can be applied to article talk pages. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if it could, it's unlikely CRASHlock would be sustainable. Articles that see a lot of rapid-fire edits contraindicate it because it clogs the review queue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a pain if it can't be used on talk pages. Nthep (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but there we are... We are getting some comments, generally vague objections rather than specific edit requests, at WP:RFPP. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The semi-protection is needed to prevent disruption and almost all the comments by non-regulars have been disruptive. See also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If we protect the page, we risk reinforcing the disruptors' belief that legitimate discussion is being stifled. If we leave it unprotected, we invite unproductive discussion. Could we protect the talk page while creating an unprotected subpage? I don’t think it’s wise to give the impression that we are censoring discussions (especially regarding #Article being reported to cyber police above). In any case, the harm from a few (or even a sahasra worth of) unproductive drive-by users seems fairly minor compared to the potential damage were the Indian press to misinterpret our actions. JayCubby 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable or acceptable to expect good faith editors to engage with edits like Special:Diff/1276158100 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Okay That’s a High Volume of Disruption in the Page History, and Also a Misunderstanding of Title Case. I Still Think It’s Worth Giving an Unprotected Subpage a Try, to Minimize ANI v1.1. JayCubby 01:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know that having all of these IPs and new accounts making tendentious arguments and legal threats that then get shut down by editors is going to do any better for Wikipedia's reputation among those who have already been convinced it's corrupt. And it is going to wear out editors who are here in good faith, while also crowding out anyone else who would like to discuss how to improve the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

By the same token, I would not expect 95% of those IPs/new users making posts to actually follow up on any replies to their answers (again, going off of what happened at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput around his death). They're basically drive-bys, making demands and not bothering to stick around regardless of whether or not they get a responce they like. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't even need to extrapolate, this is what was happening in the day or so that disruption was ongoing before the page was protected. Out of the dozens of IPs and fresh accounts, maybe 2 actually tried to follow up on arguments, and neither of them well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this is WP:beans but I fairly doubt anyone reading this wouldn't have figured it out themselves if they care. It's worth remembering that at least on desktop, we already direct editors who try to edit either the article or talk page to make requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit for when there is really some reasonable request they can make. Yes they do have to read the template, banner blindness and all that; and notably the submit and edit request button is intentionally (I assume) removed. However they're still told what to do. Some have made it there, but it's a lot less than would make it to the talk page I guess. And while I don't generally like making Wikipedia intentionally hard to force editors to think, I feel this is one of the rare instances where it's justified. In other words, if they can't figure how to make it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, it's unlikely they actually have anything useful to contribute. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I imagine part of it is WP:TCHY since a fair number of users from the Subcontinent are on mobile. (This is why the SSR FAQ is set up the way it is, to get around this particular problem.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Socks gonna sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reputation WP is already on roll with back to back legal cases and cotroversy in India, mass social media discussion regarding the reliability. Even AI is not referring WP anymore. Seen in a whatspp group chat, where certain peoples specifically ask LLM to stop refrencing WP and the LLM complies. Hard days ahead. Historian2dea (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC) I believe Wikipedians care more about spreading information than the so called "reputation". Can't change facts backed by reliable sources because a community demands so. If that happens, rest of the world will start questioning WP. Imperial[AFCND] 09:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Imperial. The thing is, these are just 'information,' not commandments set in stone. In an era of rapid information flow, where any claim can be cross-verified with countless sources at the click of a button, Wikipedia cannot be considered the ultimate repository of truth or an unquestionable authority. Information is interpreted differently by different people, shaped by perspectives, biases, and contexts. Why, then, does the Wikipedia community not adopt a more neutral approach—one that respects diverse viewpoints rather than rigidly enforcing a single narrative? Historian2dea (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC) WP:NPOV, mostly, that is the goal on this website. With mixed success, it's aspirational. On "Wikipedia cannot be considered the ultimate repository of truth", please see what WP says about that: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. I also recommend this video: [16]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Grabergs, I've got a link for you to peruse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Yeah, I noticed. Hope springs eternal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC) A journalist once wrote "The internet encyclopedia distinguishes itself from other web resources because it strives only to include information from reliable journalistic sources. That’s the value of the project: sticking to its own boring processes even if it means the encyclopedia version is less dramatic than the tabloids." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC) That journalist must be a Wikipedia editor in disguise—or worse, an admin. The reality is, Wikipedia is facing criticism left, right, and center from multiple democracies. 'Distinguish' is hardly the right word when the platform is repeatedly called out for bias, selective sourcing, and editorial gatekeeping. Claiming to rely only on 'reliable journalistic sources' sounds noble, but in practice, it often translates to reinforcing mainstream narratives while sidelining dissenting viewpoints. If anything, WP distinguishes itself by controversy, not credibility Historian2dea (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC) You missed "strives" and mis-read "distinguishes". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• I just want to be clear on one aspect of this dilemma, these new editors are upset because Wikipedia's account of this person's life is different from the account in a current, popular film? Or are they referring to a different source of information? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, I think Uncle G's rundown in the section above this gives a good explanation of why this has evidently hit a nerve in the public consciousness, and the range of sources involved, but fundamentally yes, when prompted for a source on the talk page, the few that have responded at all have pointed to Chhaava (or more precisely, the novel it is based on). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  This is like citing Catch-22 for the claim that every single soldier in World War II was insane. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  IMO it's more like citing 300 (film). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  The comic the film is based on would be the better comparison, if we're meaning "Cite it for Battle of Thermopylae". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  "The director of 300, Zack Snyder, stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Liz the users are upset because Shambhaji is reveared in that part of India. Also, the contemporary history is not reliable due to internal disputes. Additionaly , the article is full of negatives in a derogatory manner to who they revere. Historian2dea (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  A bit like how some Muslims sometimes react to WP-content about Muhammad, then. "Zee 24 TAAS, a Marathi news channel, has once again proven the power of fearless journalism, launching a high-impact campaign against Wikipedia for hosting derogatory content on the revered Maratha warrior king, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  "fearless journalism"! - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'll give them that, it is fearless. It's also missing a few other vital qualities. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Problems might include related articles like Execution of Sambhaji. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Per recent edits, I think article might require a goldlock. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill, particularly given that there are good-faith editors discussing and improving the article amid everything else. I think at this point any disruption by EC editors can be handled with blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I notice something quite pathetic about all of the news coverage from Indian sources regarding this. Not a single one of them actually specifies what the "defamatory" content is that's being discussed. None of them want to bring up the well documented in historical research and academia fact that Sambhaji was quite a bit of a womanizer and rapist. Which then led to his father putting him on house arrest essentially. I guess actually specifying that as the content being addressed might cause readers to look it up and find out that all of the academic sources say that's indeed the truth? Silverseren^C 18:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If you didn't catch it on /Edit, one editor was complaining about a source because it was providing a plainly-marked direct quote from another contemporary Portuguese source. As a reminder, Sambhaji was the prosecutor of the Maratha-Portuguese War (1683-1684) on the Marathi side. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Which we need to be careful with, as we don't want to publish historical war propaganda without critique. However we certainly don't want to publish a hagiography either! Secretlondon (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Beyond the sexual violence, some have also raised objections that Sambhaji could not possibly have fought against Shivaji and for the Mughals at the Battle of Bhupalgarh. Notably, Chhaava appears to start its plot a year or two after that incident, with news of the death of Shivaji, and presents Sambhaji as a straightforward, heroic anti-Mughal military leader _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Now that's strategic thinking! Like when they did The Patriot but decided it would be an easier sell if they didn't actually have Francis Marion in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The "objectionable" content can be found in the legal notice they sent to WMF. [17] - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that they took pains to identify that the information was not accompanied by sources. That much, at least, has been addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition to being unsourced, they also mention that the information is incorrect. The first thing we should ask ourselves would be "is it?" Can somebody familiar with the source material and historic/cultural context verify that they're certain the text is accurate, compliant with policy and guidelines, and fully supported by the sources? I'm hesitant to bow down to a Ministry of Truth for obvious reasons, but I've also had some people with questionable motives point out actual blatant BLP violations (among other issues) and I've acted on them after doing my own assessment. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, there’s been abundant sourcing for the “objectionable content” provided on the talk page, cited to relatively recent works by Indian and international historians. That having been said, there is perhaps a WP:DUE issue of the article not including any coverage of the evident veneration of Sambhaji by some today, or of the controversies regarding his portrayal in film. It further seems that Execution of Sambhaji presents additional viewpoints regarding claims of religious martyrdom not really present in the main Sambhaji article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I presume all of those news outlets have access to the legal notice as well, right? And yet none of their coverage of this specifies any of those details from said legal notice. They just mention "defamatory content" and refuse to clarify. Which seems telling to me. Silverseren^C 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be considered breaking some law about hurting religious sentiment or similar if they went into detail. Or perhaps they are worried about reactions like "A hardline Maratha group Sambhaji Brigade attacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune, India, accusing its high-caste Brahmin scholars as assisting in Laine's so-called slander of Shivaji." In 2005, I worked at a company that had an office very close to Jyllandsposten. People were worried, I remember that, and this was years before Charlie Hebdo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Although I don't think WMF turns over IP information on its editors, I think it's at the point where I'd advise editors living in India to stay away from editing some of these articles that are flashpoints. Being an editor here shouldn't endanger your job, life or family. Of course, I'd probably advise editors in Russia of the same thing if they choose to edit the Ukrainian Wikipedia. This is a hobby that I believe is very important but it shouldn't have real-life implications because an editor is a good writer and correctly cites sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you hear about Asian_News_International#Wikimedia_Foundation? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. And I'm also familiar with other incidents that have happened with editors in this geographical area over the past 2+ years. But we have heard conflicting information on whether or not the WMF has supplied any identifiable information about editors. Some media outlets in India say "Yes, they have" but, as far as I know, WMF says "No, they haven't." I'm not sure where things stand as of February 2025. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• I will say that while the throng of unregistered editors have yet to make any coherent arguments, it does seem like there could at least be some contextualization of the broader following that Sambhaji evidently enjoys, which is completely missing in the article. Execution_of_Sambhaji, especially the #Execution section seems to have some additional info already. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  The James_Laine#Shivaji:_Hindu_King_in_Islamic_India might deserve a mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Have a look at this [18]. Four editors booked over factual inaccuracies? Imperial^[AFCND] 11:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor WP:HOUNDING and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from Chetsford

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 looking through RfCs to close (because apparently I haven't learned my lesson) and I came across Talk:United States#RfC: Is Elon Musk a principal official for the purposes of the infobox?, which almost looks like a WP:SNOW. When reading through however, I was disappointed by what appeared to be hounding and battlegrounding from User:Chetsford, particularly against User:Moxy. Is this worth taking action against? guninvalid (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

How does @Moxy feel about it? I mean clearly they had a heated exchange. Whether that constitutes hounding is another thing altogether. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Diffs: [1], [2], [3]. guninvalid (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid, I notified @Chetsford in your place, but please notify editors in the future when reporting them. On the merits, this looks heated and like he significantly contributed to the quantity of comments, but no clear battleground/hounding is apparent to me. FortunateSons (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with the exchange - been in many that were much much worst and personal. Many non-American oldtimers here understand that politics is a very personal topic for Americans - not an intellectual topic - that gets heated and leads to people being overzells in some cases.Motta, Matthew (2018). "The Dynamics and Political Implications of Anti-Intellectualism in the United States". American Politics Research. 46 (3): 465–498. doi:10.1177/1532673X17719507. ISSN 1532-673X.Moxy🍁 15:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Kind of figured you might take that perspective. If Moxy isn't bothered I don't see any need to have a go at Chetsford for this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, no action should be taken here FortunateSons (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

" a very personal topic for Americans" Not that it particularly matters, but as a minor point of recordkeeping I've never claimed, insofar as I'm aware, to be American. And, in re-reading the single diff guninvalid provided of an interaction between you and I (it appears the other two were with a different editor entirely), I'm not precisely sure what was "heated" about any of the 18 words I wrote. But, I would be keen if they would provide feedback for purposes of my self-improvement. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved editor, I guess it kinda comes off as maybe a little pushy, or slightly confrontational (the "Don't you agree? I'm sure you do" part specifically, which doesn't seem to me needed to make your point) - but I have definitely seen more "heated" on Wikipedia, and I similarly don't really understand the relevance of the other diffs. This is my own perspective on that single response, though, and I haven't read any of the previous context at hand here, so I do hope this isn't perceived as me attempting to speak for Moxy or guninvalid, as this is not my intent. Cheers, NewBorders (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Noted. In the future I will observe that responding to another editor by asking "Don't you agree?" is a little pushy and will take care to eviscerate that from my phraseology. My apologies to Moxy and guninvalid for offending them and thank you, NewBorders, for the clarification. Chetsford (talk) 18:05, 21 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.

Concerns about admin actions on Gurhan Kiziloz article

I am writing to express concerns about the handling of the Gurhan Kiziloz page. I believe this page may be promoting a potentially controversial figure, and I have attempted to add relevant information or discuss this on the talk page. However, my contributions and attempts to open discussions have been repeatedly deleted by administrators. When I try to add information or discuss this on the talk page, my contributions are consistently deleted by admins.

How can I properly report this situation and have it reviewed? I'm concerned that important information is being suppressed, potentially misleading readers about the subject's background and activities.

I would appreciate guidance on the appropriate steps to address this issue and ensure that the article maintains a neutral point of view with accurate information. JboothFN (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You added an enormous amount of AI-generated content to that article. Of course, that was removed. The article is now up for deletion, where you have also contributed via AI chatbot. Please stop. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

First, your contributions were not reverted by admins. The only admin action going on in here was Bbb23 article protection, which was totally appropriate given the edit history of the article.

Second, really? 90% of the article consisting of "Controversy" section? You should really read up the policy on editing about living people.

Third, please tell us if you have an ax to grind against this guy or the company (e.g. are you involved in a lawsuit against them, or you work for the regulatory agency that imposed the fines, or you lost money with the company, or the company is a competitor of yours)? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is now boomerang time for JboothFN (talk · contribs), when it turns out that there's (Redacted) all about this article subject and xyr company:

• (Redacted)

As cited in Special:Diff/1276799408 by the JboothFN account, and in Special:Diff/1276833885 and Special:Diff/1276833765 by 92.23.247.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); sneakily without (Redacted) in any of the <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> citations.

This is a textbook example of how not to (Redacted), and how to shoot onesself in the foot by mucking about and then posting to the Administrators' Noticeboard causing people to take a closer look.

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurhan Kiziloz

Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I sure don't know what that was all about, but if you've got a boomerang handy, be my guest. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The usual; user has a COI with respect to some of their edits, but instead of dealing with it the proper way this twenty-year admin has decided to out the user in question. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to guess their identity based on provided diffs that were not purged yet - just a little bit of tying the dots (I saw the post before sanitisation). Which yes, is prohibited on-wiki, and yes, it's ridiculous given how the user themselves provided the info on the silver platter without explicitly saying: I'm XYZ working at ABC having DEF conflict of interest. (just airing my grievances). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but they are the rules and until they change I'll follow them. There's a right way to do things and the above was not it (as things currently stand). Primefac (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Primefac You have accidentally oversighted some of Springee's edits in an unrelated discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not accidental. The oversighted content was in those diffs as well. Oversight applies to the entire page, not just a section. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I get it. In any case, the guy is informed and if he is interested, he may inquire about restoring his edits, without reposting the suppressed content. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Uh... Springee's edits are still there... see timestamps at 20:15, 20:20, and 20:22 on 21 February on this page. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, sorry for bothering you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of RfC closure and un-closure

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.

---

RfC link: Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Should center-right be removed from the infobox?

Final closure text: [1]

Unclosing comment: [2]

I am requesting reivew of the close and unclose of this RfC. Closed after 16 days (rather than the standard 30) by an IP editor who has made a new account specifically for this close. Then reopened by an involved editor who had given an opinion on the RfC, as well as some comments telling others not to close. While I agree that the close should have been overturned, Springee overstepped by singlehandedly overturning the closure by themselves- essentially performing a WP:SUPERVOTE against a WP:SUPERVOTE, ironically enough. guninvalid (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Closer statement (Republican "center-right" RfC)

Uncloser statement (Republican "center-right" RfC)

Non-participants (Republican "center-right" RfC)

• Remain open - The RFC shouldn't be closed, before its tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Republican "center-right" RfC)

• Remain open That was not a closure that should have been handled by a brand new account significantly early. Even if Springee didn't follow proper process their judgment, in this case, was correct. Simonm223 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Republican "center-right" RfC)

Courtesy pings: @User:Springee @User:ThrowawayUsernameToHideIP

• guninvalid, it's clear that you object to how things transpired but what do you wish would happen now as concern this RFC? The discussion is open, are you seeking that it get reclosed? Or are you looking for some action to be taken against Springee for undoing an early close? I understand that I'm only talking about your personal opinion but it's not clear to me what your goal is here by opening this review and how the situation as it is now is different from what you want. It sounds like the situation was botched up and now the discussion is proceeding as it should have been in the first place. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think I only brought it up here per procedure. Had this not been undone, I would've brought it up here anyway. Though perhaps this would've been better at WP:VP or kept on either the article Talk or user Talk. guninvalid (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just noting, guninvalid, that you are either mentioned in or have started several discussion threads on WP:AN. I don't think that is something most editors would aspire to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  guninvalid, I think it would have been good to ask me about the closing before coming here. You didn't accuse me of acting in bad faith but suggesting that reverting, in effect, an IP close is a SUPERVOTE is a bit much. I will also note that an IP editor asked to close the discussion early [19] and several editors, yourself included[20], counseled against it. Least anyone think I was reverting the close to get my way (status quo), see my comment here [21] where I note an editor acted on the premature close and made the article level change. I stated that I was leaving the change in place in expectation the RfC will ultimately close as "remove". How would you prefer I handle this? Springee (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Probably by doing a close review at AN. But, honestly, considering the circumstances I think you handled this well enough. The outcome would have been the same regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 22 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.

Large numbers of single-purpose accounts, IP addresses, and personal attacks at Kash Patel RfC

The RfC on the Kash Patel page is currently suffering from a large number of IP address and single-purpose accounts engaging in personal attacks. As of February 22, I have tagged 37 comments as coming from 25 SPA accounts. Almost all SPA accounts are voting to oppose the RfC and are simple votes saying "No" or accusing Wikipedia and other editors of left-wing bias. Some accounts are currently under sockpuppet investigation. BootsED (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

BootsED, talk pages aren't usually protected but you could put in a request at WP:RFPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, the page was protected on February 20 and is set to expire on February 23. I submitted a request for an extension. BootsED (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism on the page of the renowned music artist Jelena Karleuša

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 address the ongoing vandalism on the page of the renowned music artist Jelena Karleuša. Over the past few days, numerous changes have been made to the page, including the addition of irrelevant content and images that degrade her professional image.

Jelena Karleuša is a respected artist with over 30 years of career in the music and international scene, and it is important that her page reflects accurate and respectful information. The current state of the page is causing professional harm and undermines the integrity of her representation on this platform.

I kindly request that the page be placed under protection to prevent further vandalism and ensure the accuracy and respect of the information on the page.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards, Ljuuban (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link Jelena Karleuša. Knitsey (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ljuuban: please provide diffs showing which edits, exactly, you consider to be vandalism. Note that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia; not every edit that you disagree with is vandalism. If this is simply a content dispute, you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and not get into edit warring, which you seem to be veering towards if not already there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your message. I appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification regarding the edits I believe to be problematic.

1. Political context: Jelena Karleuša is a music artist, and the introduction of political context in her biography is not only irrelevant but misleading. It detracts from the focus on her music career, which should be the central topic of the page.

2. Images: There has been a persistent use of images from 2024, despite the presence of newer and more appropriate images. This change appears to be unnecessary and does not accurately represent the current state of her public image.

3. Music genre: The classification of her music as “Turbo-Folk” is incorrect and misleading. Jelena Karleuša is primarily a pop artist, and mislabeling her genre undermines the accuracy of the article.

4. Ethnicity: There have been incorrect changes regarding her ethnicity, such as listing her as Slovenian based on her father’s ethnicity. Jelena Karleuša is of Serbian descent through her father, Dragan Karleuša, and her late mother was of Slovenian nationality. The current edits misrepresent her heritage and mislead readers about her background.

These are just a few examples of the discrepancies I’ve been addressing. I am not simply engaging in a content dispute but working to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the article. As suggested, I will continue to use the article’s talk page for further discussions and collaboration to ensure that the content is accurate and respectful.

Thank you for your attention to these points.

Best regards Ljuuban (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Omg how can anyone think this AI generated trash is an acceptable way to communicate? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ljuuban: I haven't looked at any specific edits (and you still don't provide diffs), but I don't immediately see anything there that suggests vandalism, and everything that seems squarely within the realm of content dispute. I am sure you feel that you are improving the article, but for all we know, so do probably the others editing it as well. Where views differ, the way to resolution goes via the article talk page, not AN. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I understand that you may not see anything that suggests vandalism at first glance, but I would like to clarify that the edits I addressed go beyond a simple content dispute. The changes I reverted involved inaccurate information, such as the introduction of political context that is irrelevant to Jelena Karleuša’s career as a music artist, as well as the misrepresentation of her ethnicity. Ljuuban (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ljuuban: if someone states (to give an example), without citing a source, that this person is of a particular political persuasion, that can and should be reverted as unreferenced biographical information. If they state that, backed up by a reliable source, but you just don't like that statement being included in the article (per your point #1), that is a content dispute issue. Neither scenario is vandalism (or at least highly unlikely to be vandalism, on those facts alone). Ditto, whether the article includes photos from 2024 or some other year. Ditto, which genre this person's music is classified under.

To save us having to plough through the edit history of this article, if you still wish to pursue the vandalism claim you really need to produce the diffs I've already asked for. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand the distinction between content disputes and vandalism. However, I would like to highlight that Serbia is currently experiencing civic unrest, and public figures like Jelena Karleuša are being unnecessarily linked to political narratives.

Recent edits on her page repeatedly introduce unreferenced political context, attempting to portray her as a political figure rather than a music artist with a 30-year career. Additionally, there’s persistent use of 2024 images that could imply political associations and repeated misclassification of her music genre from Pop to Turbo-Folk, which is factually incorrect.

These edits, lacking reliable sources, misrepresent her public image, especially in the current socio-political climate. I am happy to provide diffs if needed. Thank you. Ljuuban (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ljuuban, you've been asked multiple times to provide diffs of what you consider to be vandalism. If you are "happy to", then please do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This might help in providing evidence of what you claim is vandalism. How to create diffs, here, Knitsey (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the OP has confused vandalism with accurate reporting on what reliable sources say about a BLP. We should probably close this thread.Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• There are some very disruptive edits going on at the article, mostly by certain IPs, one of whom I've blocked as a proxy, and some by the OP. If anything more needs to be done here, perhaps page protection and at least a warning to the OP for their WP:SPA promotion of the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: I completely agree. The best course of action would be to implement a temporary 30-day editing restriction to stabilize the situation and prevent further disruptive edits. During this period, the page can be closely monitored to assess any further developments, with additional measures taken if necessary. A temporary protection seems like the most effective solution at this point. Ljuuban (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ljuuban, I think your use of AI is getting in the way of understanding. You are the OP who is promoting the subject. This is an encyclopedia article, not part of Karleuša's promotional campaign. Your use of Wikipedia to promote Karleuša would be slightly less obvious if you didn't use WP:PEACOCK words like "renowned". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Article semi-protected for a week. Something still needs to be done about the OP. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not too sure that semi-protection will do much good, given that the main offender (the OP) is autoconfirmed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don't like partial blocks, but I've pblocked Ljuuban indefinitely from editing the article. Any administrator is welcome to convert the block to a sitewide block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: As I said before, I was trying to remove incorrect information. I repeat, Jelena Karleusa is not Slovenian nor does she have Slovenian citizenship. Her mother is of Slavic origin.

  Another thing, Jelena's musical direction is not turbo-folk, as Wikipedia claims.

  Third, what does a partner have to do with the biography of a music star?

  Also, my request was to protect the page from editing due to the politicization of her musical character. Ljuuban (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• A partial block is great but a sitewide indef would be even better for this WP:NOTHERE SPA. When Ljuuban gains an interest in Wikipedia editing, they will be able to state so in their unblock request.—Alalch E. 18:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Alalch E.: thanks! I will request this. Ljuuban (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Great! Hope to see you back soon in a different capacity. —Alalch E. 19:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  OP has much to say at UTRS appeal #100667 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: Are you being facetious? All they do is repeat what they've already said.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Didn't say they have anything new to say, but I've no interest in what they have to say. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  A group of vandals want to know everything. Ljuuban (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Buncha know-it-alls these Wikipedians, meddling in other people's affairs... —Alalch E. 20:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry for wanting accurate information. Didn’t realize facts were such a bother. Ljuuban (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  2024–2025 Serbian anti-corruption protests are ongoing. Madonna randomly shared a post on Instagram in support of the protesting students. Karleuša directed a post to Madonna telling her among other things to f off. This received widespread reactions in Serbia, with Serbian internet users generally expressing various degrees of amusement. As a reverberation of these political and social media events, Karleuša's article has been seeing increased activity. The sentence "She has since been widely condemned for her political statements, which often include elements of hate speech, misinformation and political propaganda" made its way to the lead. Consequntly, Karleuša's supporters or promoters have come to Wikipedia to make coverage of her more favorable, including ridiculously changing the genre of the music she is performing from the unprestigious, vulgar, and often-derided turbo-folk to generic "pop". How do you like these facts, Ljuuban? —Alalch E. 20:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, “widespread reactions in Serbia” – yes, if by that you mean the amusement sparked by the students protesting due to unmet demands. The real issues that need addressing are:

  1. The government must fulfill its obligation to protect student rights.

  2. Increase the budget for education and science.

  3. Introduce transparency in academic management.

  4. Revoke recent changes to laws that threaten academic independence.

  While the media you cite spin and exaggerate events, the real problems are being ignored. Jelena Karleuša is not the topic of protests, but the media likes to “fix the image” by reducing everything to turbo-folk and “hate speech,” which is far from the truth. Ljuuban (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Her representatives have been trying to change the genre for over a decade, since I had the article on my watchlist. I know at the time there were many references, including scholarly ones, for her being a turbo-folk singer. I really can't be arsed to check whether that has changed since then. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  While it is true that Jelena Karleuša's early career may have had elements of turbo-folk, there is ample evidence over the past decade that her music has evolved into pop. Her albums from this period are clearly within the pop genre, which can be easily verified on music platforms... That is why it is important to acknowledge this shift when discussing her musical identity today. Ljuuban (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for reminding us never to refer to music platforms because their content is defined or influenced by promoters. —Alalch E. 21:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, we're asking for your "expert" opinion and these Wiki bots of yours. Especially that little one Bbb23 — a lot of hypocrisy. Ljuuban (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, we're asking for your "expert" opinion and these Wiki bots of yours. Especially that little one Bbb23 — a lot of hypocrisy.

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 threats by Virajbhau

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 new user, Virajbhau (talk · contribs) has recreated an article for Sambhaji at Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj which was originally a redirect to the article for Sambhaji. As the article was an unreferenced creation and was a recreation of the article Sambhaji to their prefered content, I deleted the content and restored the redirect. [22]. The editor has then restored the unreferenced duplicate [23] and this time added a legal threat at the talk page [24]. The threat includes legal and illegal methods in the title of the tp message. I apologise, I could have sworn I left them a message yesterday but it seems not. I've now requested the deletion of the article via custom CSD notice [25] As this is obviously part of the recent legal wrangling I would prefer it if an admin dealt with this. I've left the legal threat on the talk page for now.

I've also apologises to the user for failing to leave a message when they first created the duplicate article. I could have sworn I left them a message at the time, but obviously didn't. Knitsey (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for the legal threat; that seemed straightforward enough. However, the threat of "illegal methods" sounds concerning, even if it's not clear against whom or what that is aimed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's strange that they declared they would use illegal methods, which would be, er, illegal. Kind of dropping themselves in it. I'm in the Uk so it might be a while before they get here.

If I stop editing over the next few days, send help.

Joking aside, if it happens again I will RPP first. Thanks for the block @DoubleGrazing. Knitsey (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

When you say you're in the UK, you presumably mean in the University of Kara, in Togo? ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be prefereble right now. Knitsey (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect to Sambhaji, as this is clearly the same subject. I also semi-protected the title for a couple of days. Anyone disagree with any of that, feel free to amend as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 23 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.

sock puppet

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 editor has created fake account just to attack me. I thought id ignore it, but still worth reporting it if there is a pattern and may be harmful to others. i suspect 2 people whom i'm have had disagreements recently and reported them. Can we find out who is sock puppet? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astropulse&diff=prev&oldid=1276866009 Astropulse (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

While that definitely looks like an account that likely to be WP:NOTHERE, if you have suspicions about who they are, WP:SPI is where you need to report it. But you need to have a solid case as to who the putitive master is, as  CheckUser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

ok, ty Astropulse (talk) 16:44, 23 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.

Revdel

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.

---

Somebody please revdel [26] Electricmemory (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 24 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.

AIV backlog

WP:AIV has a significant backlog, if anyone's in need of something to do... Electricmemory (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Query regarding MAB

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.

---

Hey, fellow admins,

For some unknown reasons, I actually look at all of the IP accounts that vandalize our project pages on behalf of MidAtlanticBaby. And I noticed something today. Responding admins have a wide variety of responses to this troll, I saw one IP account blocked today for two years and others that were blocked for 1 or 2 weeks. In the cases I looked at, these vandalistic edits were the only edits of these IP accounts so I don't think there is any collateral damage.

I realize that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (someone can correct this quote) but it seems like this is a troll who daily causes trouble, that we don't seem able to stop, maybe we should agree on a proper length of an IP account block in response when this happens. If this is BEANS and should be a discussion happening elsewhere, feel free to move this discussion. It's just such a predictable event that regularly occurs and we have random admins called to respond, it would be helpful to have a standard response we could execute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you come across any indication that MAB ever reuses addresses? My sense is that they don't, and that thus it doesn't really matter beyond a few days' time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The block length I give depends upon how sure I am that an open proxy was being used. The length of the block is set to block the proxy, not just MAB. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. The IP geolocation tool used to state whether an IP address is static or not but the page doesn't seem to include that information any longer so I'm not sure how to judge whether it's a proxy. My guess is when admins are confronted, once again, by this persistent gadfly, admins just seek to shut down the account as swiftly as possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Usually it's VPNGate that is being used. Spur will report that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The IPs in question may be anything. VPN Gate is run on a network of computers owned by people who want to use a cannot-be-shut-down proxy to do whatever they want. People with normal at-home (or at university or whatever) computers sign up and anyone can use their IP to do whatever. No one wanting to fix a typo at Wikipedia will use that system. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how to judge whether it's a proxy." https://spur.us/context/[add IP here after url] works most of the time. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would assume the longer blocks are being given out to the open proxies and a cursory glance tells me that is the case. In cases where the IP address is unlikely to be used twice by the same LTA then a shorter block is preferable as it could be used by a good faith editor later down the line. Patient Zero^talk 03:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I did the two-year block as an open proxy based on this report by MolecularPilot. I normally block for one year but I have seen two-year blocks several times recently. These are IPs that are designed to be used when someone knows that their actions will lead to a block–the IPs are different from proxies of the past. I happen to know of one IP that was reused after a short block ([27]), and I've seen a small number of others. The LTA is not necessarily trying to reuse an IP—they just use the open proxy network to get any IP and some of the reuse would be accidental. MolecularPilot is collecting IPs (see BRFA) and that list might be used to block many of these IPs in advance. Times are changed from when Wikipedia started in 2001. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was able to connect to VPNgate and use that IP as an egress IP so I commented at AIV that I've confirmed it's an open proxy. The way VPNgate works (the fact that anyone can start and stop volunteering their computer as a node at any time) means that most often the IP addresses used as "egress IPs" for the network are ephemeral and rotate regularly (unlike other open proxies), escalating blocks starting at a few weeks seems reasonable in my (purely technical) opinion. I've definitely seen 2 year blocks recently as well, perhaps the admins making those know something we don't? MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be looking for consistency, the same for any other IPs. My go-to length is 3 months for an OpenVPN IP with no evidence of reuse. Most of these IPs are highly dynamic, since they are usually just regular ISP clients. A previous block log, or previous use as a proxy can get this extended. My maximum is probably about 2 years for a previously blocked reused proxy (it usually takes some skillz to identify it as a reused proxy), These things can get reused, and they can also get used by accounts. MAB/DarwinandBrianEdits is also known to create and use sleepers on these IPs, which is why I don't anon-only. I've even seen many of these IPs used by 2 or more LTAs in the same week. I suggest an immediate 2 year block without these factors is a bit overkill, and 31 hours is a bit short, but let's please not aim for consistency. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this statement due to the nature of VPNgate, as it's possible for anyone to start volunteering their computer to VPNgate, and stop whenever they like, and most of these people who volunteer have dynamic IPs, so IPs used by the VPNgate network to communicate with the outside world rotates quite regularly. Around the time of the BRFA, I did some back of the napkin math and came to this conclusion re ideal block lengths, assuming an automated bot is always checking the hourly list of 98 randomly selected nodes for their "egress" IP addresses used to communicate with Wikipedia:

[blocks should start at] 2.5 days/60 hours (because VPNgate has 6000 active volunteers on average, divided by approx 100 volunteer hosts checked [by the bot] every hour [note: exactly it's 98, that's how many they make avaliable to check per hour, see linked discussion for more on this], minimum time to ensure the IP has truly stopped [being a VPNgate volunteer]) ... but ramps up exponentially if it's seen again as an egress IP again until we're talking like 6months - 2 years blocks.

— Me in January

I also strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 217#VPNgate blocking bot (especially the "Discussion" section) for anyone who is interested in the technical elements of VPNgate, such as "ingress" vs "egress" IP addresses, I did a lot of investigation into how it works and have discussed what I found with other contributors there. The bot is currently stalled on me requesting access to Cloud VPS from the WMF, as it turned out to not be possible to run it on toolforge.

As an additional note, I have developed {{Blocked VPNgate}} for use when blocking a VPNgate/MAB IP, it contains language that's more relevant to the volunteer nature of VPNgate rather than traditonal proxies. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Considering how MAB has continued to be a problem (more so than I expected) and how I have a bunch of Azure credits I get for free because I am under 18/a high school student (it's a program they have) that I never use, I've spun up an Azure VM (it would only cost $7/month and I get $100/year in free credit because I'm a student and I never spend it anyway) and deployed the bot code on there to keep it up permanently. Any administrator interested in developing the admin bot to block detected (by this bot) egress IPs increasingly severely (there is already consensus for this at VPT and all you'd need to do is deploy my blocking code on your toolforge [that part would work on toolforge] and file a BRFA) would be very much appreciated (you can leave a message for me on talk or reply here if you'd like). :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• I was really seeking to simplify this process and have a general guideline for admins to follow but I'll admit that I'm more confused than I was when I first posted this. At this point, I feel like leaving it to others to determine an appropriate duration for an IP account block. This is not blaming anyone, I appreciate the information provided, it's just more complicated than I thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 20 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.

Oversight removed revisions, are some of them lost?

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.

---

Something WP:BLP related happened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Department_of_Government_Efficiency&action=history

It looks like there was at least one new section unrelated to the BLP thing plus a few other unrelated replies? Are those toast? Should the users be notified to redo their comments on a clean talk page? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If the new section is still present on more recent revisions than those Suppression touched, then no. If that isn't the case (i.e. the section is collateral damage) then inviting the editor to re-do the section or asking a Suppressor to restore the section specifically is a good idea. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The offending content has been removed. The intervening edits to the page history where this content was visible have been suppressed. All of the other edits made in the intervening time between when the content was posted and when it was removed are fine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, so nothing to do? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Very Polite Person, I don't believe so. Suppression of content on this project is very infrequent and is targeted so that any other comments on a talk page are preserved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 24 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.

Banned user posting from an IP address

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 wanted to bring something to your attention. I noticed that an anonymous user posting from the IP address 32.209.69.24 is the banned user Joseph A. Spadaro. The posting style and range of interests are unmistakable. I have already left a note on the IP's talk page. I also alerted an admin, Acroterion, who temporarily blocked the IP a few weeks ago. --Viennese Waltz 13:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Viennese Waltz and Polygnotus. I have blocked the IP address for two years. That's a long time to block an IP but I believe it is justified since Spadaro has been using this IP to evade his ban since December 2023, and has made well over 1000 edits from this IP. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 20 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.

Kash Patel 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.

---

• Kash Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

there is an open RfC asking "Whether to call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence"[28]

two editors, CapnJackSp[29] and Npsaltos428[30] appear to have unilaterally decided that the answer is 'no' and have removed content accordingly. one editor came to my Talk page asking me to explain why I reverted their improper removal of content. I believe their edits improperly circumvent the RfC. I have attempted to discuss this at article Talk, with an apparent response of "get over it, he's in office now, so it's moot." I ask the open RfC be enforced. soibangla (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• (Non-Admin Comment) – Here is a reversion of the article about 1 week before the RFC began. “Conspiracy theories” was noted in the lead paragraphs (third one), however, the first sentence was “Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel[1][2] (born February 25, 1980) is an American lawyer and former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice.” Per WP:ONUS – “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” If I understand ONUS correctly, until the conclusion of the RFC, the term “conspiracy theories” should not appear in the first sentence at all, as there is no consensus to include it yet. As a non-administrator I would say those two reversions were poor judgement ones (i.e. shouldn’t have happened), but the term should not appear in the first sentence until the RFC ends. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I should also add that the "conspiracy theorist" term existed prior to the RfC, and the RfC creator, who was also deeply involved in opposition to inclusion, unilaterally and improperly closed the RfC (and another regarding RFK Jr) and was admonished by editors and admins that their actions were potentially sanctionable.[31]] I hope the integrity of the RfC process can be maintained. soibangla (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You would indeed be correct. Here is a timeline I have researched:

• Jan 30, 15:09 term “conspiracy theorist” added to first sentence with the reasoning, "Fix".
• Jan 30, 17:57 term “conspiracy theorist” removed from first sentence by Wikieditor662 with the reasoning, "Unnecessary for the first sentence".
• Jan 31, 01:58 term “conspiracy theory promoter” added to first sentence by Soibangla with the reasoning, “see body for extensive "conspiracy theory promoter" documentation”
• Jan 31, 17:56 term changed from “conspiracy theory promoter” to “conspiracy theorist”.
• Feb 1, 10:30 term “conspiracy theorist” removed from first sentence with the reasoning, “Pending consensus as discussed on TALK page. Requested an RfC from ~ ToBeFree (talk): I think we need an RfC regarding removing "and conspiracy theorist"** from the opening sentence, since there seems to be an edit war on it. Thanks.”
• Feb 1, 10:51 term “Conspiracy theorist” readded to first sentence by Soibangla with the reasoning, “if you "think we need an RfC regarding removing "and conspiracy theorist"** from the opening sentence," please maintain the status quo pending that RfC”
• Feb 4, 13:57 term “Conspiracy theorist” removed from first sentence with the reasoning, “Removed a speculative Democratic Party accusation against a Republican public figure.”
• Feb 4, 20:09 term “Conspiracy theorist” readded to first sentence by Soibangla With the reasoning, “and conspiracy theorist”.
• RFC Start at Feb 5, 23:04 by Wikieditor662.

While you are correct that it was in the article before the RFC, it was not an uncontested item. At least in the week leading up to the RFC, the term was added and removed 3 different times. Subsequently, one editor was the re-adding editor on all 3 of those occasions. WP:ONUS still honestly plays a role in my opinion. Just based on this timeline, it is clear there is no clear consensus to add the term to the first sentence, so the status quo of pre-RFC as well as pre-edit dispute would be to have it removed from the first sentence until the RFC concludes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Given Soibangla's history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in this topic area, including at many points casting aspersions towards other editors, and this incident, where they've been reinstating contested BLP content in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE, I've indefinitely topic-banned them from WP:CT/AP as an arbitration enforcement action. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to talk to them on their T/P about the edit which was clearly a BLP vio, but they refused to offer any explanation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

CapnJackSp had you mentioned a BLP vio it would have caught my attention and I would have engaged you and reversed my action if I concluded you were correct, but that's not what you did. soibangla (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You sure that this revert was appropriate? This isnt something I care enough about to get into reverting reverts, but adding contentious stuff to a high notice BLP page is just inviting trouble. Would you be willing to explain why you felt that the phrase must be included before the RFC for its inclusion finishes? [32] Huh. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This whole dispute is very silly. Read WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. We have a whole section of the article about his conspiracy theories. That should be summarized in the lead. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Like am I missing something here? The "personal views" section has two sub-headings. One is a brief account of him feuding with Musk. The other is an extensive enumeration of the conspiracy theories he subscribes to publicly. How is it a BLP violation for the lede to accurately summarize the body of the same article? Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the dispute is about the first sentence, not the entire lede. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the third paragraph of lede. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

But again that isn't a BLP concern - at most it's a MOS question. And frankly it's kind of absurd to have an RfC over something as trivial as whether to summarize something in para 1 or para 3 of a lede. But also most of the oppose !votes are opposing his characterization as a conspiracy theorist. Has anyone told them the RfC really won't change that? I am so tired of this silliness in AP2. It is going to be a long 4 years. Simonm223 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The RFC is about if it should be kept in the first sentence or later in the lead. The long standing is not the first sentence and thus you should not of restored it. Please revert. PackMecEng (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I did. Almost immediately. My self-revert was subsequently reverted. Simonm223 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ack, sorry about that, I meant BootsED. PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That was my mistake! I was trying to restore it and apparently there was a mix up. BootsED (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe the concern isn't so much the fact that adding it violates BLP (though people are arguing it does, per the "must be written conservatively" part of BLP), it's the fact that the article is a BLP article, and has to follow WP:BLPRESTORE. Disputed material must achieve consensus before being readded. So the BLP concern is about the reversions and the dispute itself, not necessarily about whether he is a conspiracy theorist or not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok but is there any policy driven ground to exclude? Because if not this whole RfC is still essentially WP:CRYBLP just wearing a hat. Simonm223 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe MOS:LEADSENTENCE? What I believe the main focus of this RfC is not whether or not he has promoted conspiracies or not, he has, it's whether his promotion of conspiracies is so central to him that it should be included in the first sentence. You evidently believe so, but others do not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

He ran a conspiracy podcast so it was literally his job to a certain extent. I'd say it's pretty central. Again this whole RfC strikes me as unnecessary in the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty central. and others disagree, hence the RfC. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Do they? On what grounds exactly? What policy reason is there to downplay this man's many extremely fringe beliefs? Simonm223 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It ends up being a due weight issue. How important it is in defining him as a person, some say its super important, others less so. So the policy reason is WP:DUE, but there is no hard and fast metric besides editorial judgment. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok that's fair. I still don't like this RfC but that is at least a policy-based response rather than pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That kind of consensus is needed for the body, not the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph follows the body.

If editors believe that this is a BLP issue, they need to challenge what the article body says. Questioning the lead paragraph can only be done if it doesn't accurately represent the body. Cortador (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is about the lead sentence, not lead paragraph. Most do not dispute that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That changes nothing. What does into that sentence is likewise determined by the makeup of the article body. Cortador (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean sure, but you have to keep in mind that we can't make the first sentence be infinitely long, to include every important detail form the body. We have to pick and choose what goes into the first sentence, and that's what the RfC is about. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean... Lucy Ellmann took a fair try at an infinite first sentence. Simonm223 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean we could resolve the issue by replacing all the periods in the article with "the fact that" if you want to go that route.  :) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean... having only one sentence in the article would cut through the gordian knot of this RfC.Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I see we're in agreement. brb, going to close the RfC rn. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not how that works and it is mentioned in the lead. The RFC is about where in the lead. The position in the lead, specifically the first sentence, has undue weight implications because the first sentence is what main thing the subject is known for, while the rest of the lead is a summary of the article. Undue weight on something in a BLP, is a BLP violation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Is there any admin action that needs to be taken here or have things been resolved? It seems like this discussion has evolved into a conversation about the RFC. That doesn't need to happen on this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, I don't think there needs to be any admin action here, at least for now. I have reclosed the RfC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:15, 24 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.

CheckUser consultations, February 2025

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for CheckUser access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment at the CheckUser consultations until the end of 3 March 2025 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Primefac (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser consultations, February 2025

Consistently disruptive user

I'd like to request that a particularly disruptive user please be dealt with. Special:Contributions/2405:201:5506:9105:71AF:4BCE:DC10:5BB5 is one IP in particular which I suspect is just one of many from the same user, who in particular causes disruptions on Bollywood-related pages. It's been ongoing for a long while at this point and adds nothing of substance to Wikipedia Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Theudariks 2.0, can you please provide diffs of three or four obviously disruptive edits? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Here are a few https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dharma_Productions_films&diff=prev&oldid=1277375373 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jolly_LLB_3&diff=prev&oldid=1277403381 , ...and I say it's repetitive because this has happened before. Bearing in mind the fact that these actors are not reported to have been involved with one film here in particular (I've searched myself), [link] from an different IP address from November last year edited the page and included many of the same additions as a much more recent one. It can't be coincidental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theudariks 2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Something fishy

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:Klaphinnae's edits seem off somehow to me, like it's a bot or something trying to learn Wikipedia. I may be totally wrong, but someone else should take a look... Electricmemory (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No brother i'm not a bot, actually its my first time working on it but im trying my best way to do it! Klaphinnae (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they've made enough edits to show a pattern of fishiness. Many people start out with a bit of silliness. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Some of us don't realize at first that Wikipedia has no sense of humor it is aware. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 25 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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dev0745

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.

---

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Dev0745 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Per informal admin colloquy, it is noted that Dev0745's edits since [the earlier, broader] topic ban's imposition have largely violated it, but also largely been acceptable, and as such imposing a sanction for these violations would not serve a preventative purpose. Instead, the ban is narrowed to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed; Dev0745 is warned that this new scope covers some of the edits they had been making, which they must take care to avoid in the future.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Waived. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Dev0745

Hello, I got banned by Tamzin on 10 May 2023 for continued use of low-quality sources, misrepresentation of sources, and improper synthesis of sources. See [33]. Since then I have learned considerably about how to find proper sources. Then, Tamzin narrowed the ban to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed on 11 January 2025. See [34]. I request to uplift the ban from all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan since I have learned considerably about how to find proper sources and write them. Dev0745 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, In the article of love jihad, what I wrote was that Popular Front of India was under scanner by NIA for conversion cases. Later banned for links with SIMI, a terrorist group banned by Indian government which were clearly mentioned in those articles. Whether they found any evidence of love jihad or evidence of coercion is different thing. I was only mentioned they were under investigation by NIA for conversion in 2017. Later banned for links with terrorist groups in 2021. I don't know that not writing about India Today media report of not finding coercion is against Wikipedia policy. I will ensure that I will follow Wikipedia policy properly. Dev0745 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

PFI do conversion by running centre to convert non-muslim by indoctrination as per NIA. see news articles:[35], [36], [37], [38]. Religious conversion is not a crime in India unless it is force conversion.

Rsjaffe is saying that I wrote PFI was under scanner for love jihad cases. Actually I wrote PFI was scanner for conversion cases. The Wikimedia page love jihad mentioned incident of 2017 where NIA didn't find any organised plan of conversion and not mentioned about ban of PFI in 2022 for links with Terrorist groups. So I wrote PFI was under scanner for conversion cases in 2017. And later got banned in 2022 for links with terrorist groups. I have accepted by fault, if that was violation of Wikimedia policy due to ommison of not finding coercion in conversion by NIA. Dev0745 (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Bonadea, I accepted that I have done mistake by ommison. In original edit, I wrote that PFI was under scanner for conversion. But I written love jihad in palce of conversion in appeal section as I didn't written exact sentence which I have written in love jihad article page. I have been banned since 10 May 2023 and learned considerably about finding reliable sources and will try to follow Wikipedia policy. I want unban from religion, politics and culture related articles. But if you guys are not in favour unbanning from all banned articles, at least unban from politics and culture related articles. Thanks. Dev0745 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that discussion in talk page is also ban and creating page about singer is also ban. I thought person or biographical articles including plaback singer don't fall under politics, religion culture related articles. In India, generally cinema don't represent tradition. There is overlap between tradition and culture. I thought cinema is not part of culture, but I was wrong as tradition and culture and different thing. Now I am thinking that I am banned from page related to Culture which I earlier thought include tradition and religion. But Culture include wide range of topics including Sports, Media which also includes Cinema, Philosophy, Education which never thought. Dev0745 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I realised my mistakes that I have not followed topic ban properly due to my ignorance. Here most Admin are against unban due to this reason. I will appeal again next year. Thanks to everyone. Dev0745 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

• No comment at this time, other than to note the previous unsuccessful appeal. That was filed shortly after the initial ban, so shouldn't have much bearing now, but still ought to be noted. Also, this was posted without using the template that ArbCom requires, so I've taken the liberty of fixing that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh also, courtesy pings to @Bishonen and @RegentsPark per involvement in Special:Permalink/1267943278 § Dev0745: accept fait accompli, or indef?. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: I imposed the TBAN as an individual admin action for reasons explained initially here and at greater length here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Dev0745: Since no one's supported or opposed yet, I'll try to get the ball rolling. In my mind, the biggest issue with your conduct was that you wrote In 2017, PFI was under scanner of National Investigation Agency for carrying out conversion of hindu women and marrying them to muslim men, citing a source that includes the sentence However, the agency concluded its probe in October 2018 after it found no 'evidence of coercion' that could result in prosecution, a fact you completely omitted from your edit. In your first appeal, your response to the charge of misrepresentation by omission was I never read it at any Wikipedia policy, which triggered a rather incredulous response from the Oxford IP: Do you seriously need 'don't misrepresent what sources say' to be spelled out in policy for you? I'm shocked, that is such a fundamental and common sense statement. If you genuinely didn't know that misrepresenting sources is wrong that points to there being serious WP:CIR issues at play here.

  Two years later, do you feel you have a better grasp on why it's such a big deal to selectively omit details from a source like that? Do you think that, if unbanned, you could ensure you wouldn't repeat that behavior? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Dev0745: Please don't edit comments people have replied to. Just make a new comment.

  That said, based on the edits Dev made, which show Dev misunderstood the modified TBAN's scope, I don't think @Pppery's proposal of an indef is needed. To be clear, Dev, "politics, religion, and culture" covers most human activity. The only reason I didn't word your ban as "human activity in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan," was I didn't want to prevent you from discussing human impact or conservation efforts in the zoology articles you edit. But yeah, most things humans do are politics, religion, or culture. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dev0745

• I find it useful to have links to previous AE discussions so here are several, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263#Dev0745 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive313#Dev0745. It looks like the topic ban wasn't imposed as a result of an AE discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a general lack of admin activity and response to most discussion threads in AN that is disappointing. Or maybe I have higher expectations. There is also a decrease in activity I've noticed in AFDs. We seem to be seeing a decrease of editors in some very important areas of the project and it's not even the holidays or summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• The sanctions were narrowed a month ago so this may be a bit too soon but I'm willing to give it a shot. The edits since the ban was narrowed appear to be mostly gnomish and what references I've seen look reasonable.RegentsPark (comment) 16:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• I find the reply to Tamzin's question about the Love Jihad article edits totally unsatisfactory. what I wrote was that Popular Front of India was under scanner by NIA for love jihad cases ... Whether they found any evidence of love jihad or evidence of coercion is different thing. I was only mentioned they were under investigation by NIA for conversion in 2017. That is distortion by omission and I see no recognition of the problem by Dev0745. Given that, I am against the appeal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• I think the narrowed topic ban needs to remain, based on Dev0745's responses to Tamzin and rsjaffe above. I don't know that not writing about India Today media report of not finding coercion is against Wikipedia policy. doesn't do anything to convince me that they do understand what the problem is. An additional problem is the fact that Dev0745 edited their reply to Tamzin after rsjaffe had quoted it (Dev's original reply, rsjaffe's comment, Dev changes original reply) and then accused rsjaffe of misquoting. The basic meaning of the original response is the same whether Dev used the phrase "love jihad" or "conversion", and so the distortion-by-omission problem is still there, but it should be obvious to an editor with as much experience as Dev0745 has that tampering with a post that has been replied to is inappropriate. Tampering with a post that's been quoted, and saying that the quoting editor was wrong is more than inappropriate (and indeed another form of source misrepresentation!) --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Dev0745, you are topic banned from all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed[39]. And in this discussion on Bishonen's user talk page, Tamzin explicitly pointed out that the ban includes edits about tribes, and that you need to stop editing about ethnic and social groups in India. That linked discussion includes a post from 6 January where you acknowledged this limit. Since then, you have made almost 30 edits to Talk:Kudmi Mahato, participating in multiple discussions about whether that community is a tribe or not: [40]. Your argument about Raj-era ethnographers is valid, but that doesn't matter – a topic ban means that there shouldn't be any edits at all about social/tribal/caste/ethnic groups in India. Your topic ban includes culture in India, so the fact that you created a new article about an Indian singer (Pawan Roy) today would also appear to be a topic ban violation. --bonadea contributions talk 16:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Decline this appeal and indef Dev0745 for showing unwillingness to respect the topic ban in the first place. We've been fooled once before, we shouldn't be fooled again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Replying to Tamzin above, I don't see how the edits Bonadea points out can be the result of a good faith misunderstanding. This is someone who was topic banned once, rampantly violated it, and managed by sheer luck to avoid being punished for that (I'm against the entire concept of adverse possession unblocks, by the way). And now they've squandered that chance by violating that topic ban again. Sorry, that's the end of the line for me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 23 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.

Tamzin: Appeal of voluntary adminning 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.

---

During my RfA 3 years ago, I pledged I would not take administrative action in disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him, outside of super-blatant disruption like someone spamming an anti- or pro-Trump catchphrase across a bunch of talk pages. While RfA promises are not binding, I have nonetheless treated this like a TBAN imposed by the community. In that spirit, I would like to now appeal the restriction to the community.

Like many people who appeal TBANs, I am appealing less because I want to do the exact thing restricted, and more because of the chilling effect it causes. When I made this pledge, Donald Trump was a former president at perhaps his 10-year nadir in relevance. Complying with my restriction meant not taking action if I happened to learn someone was a Trump supporter, but this rarely came up; it's not like I was checking every user's userpage for pro-Trump userboxen, and I did not infer support for Trump based on other political views. But now Trump is—in case any of y'all missed this—the president, and that complicates things. I recently for the first time ran into a situation where I was prevented from blocking a sockpuppet because of it. A few weeks later, I went to clerk an SPI where userpage similarities were part of the evidence, but one user's Trump userbox prevents me from resolving it with the AGF warning I'd otherwise give. But more common than these two direct cases are ones where I worry that some admin action (for instance, my protection of Linda L. Fagan from serious BLP violations) might be construed as breaking that promise, especially because a number of people have misremembered my recusal as broader than it was. As Trump has become an increasingly significant subject of discussion on-wiki, the restriction has increasingly felt like a limitation on doing my role effectively as a user-conduct admin.

I think that over the past 3 years, I've shown I am able to judge where I can and cannot admin neutrally, including by successfully adminning in some parts of the GENSEX and AMPOL topic areas while recusing from those parts where I have expressed opinions publicly. I am aware that the lifting of this restriction would not exempt me from WP:INVOLVED, and, to borrow a phrase I recently saw in someone else's TBAN appeal and liked, I welcome that scrutiny. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support appeal All of us, particularly those who live in the US, have an opinion on Donald Trump, and many of those opinions are strongly-held. It is not whether you have a position, but rather whether you let your position taint your objectivity in dealing with issues. By being clear about your position, you are one of the few administrators whose actions can be readily scrutinized by those looking for bias. In short, go ahead, and, as all of us must be, be careful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support appeal – I recall no incidents where Tamzin has used admin powers in a manner that'd give me pause here. Remsense ‥ 论 02:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support appeal - I don't recall any administrative misbehavior. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The standard advice for Wikipedia editors appealing a t-ban is to explain why they received the t-ban and why that reason is no longer applicable. I don't see that explanation. From my perspective, it was because you said supporters of Donald Trump was incompatible with a position of trust in the community, and many editors felt like you would judge Trump supporters differently when performing administrative actions. Instead, you're saying it was a tactical move as "Donald Trump was a former president at perhaps his 10-year nadir in relevance" as you didn't think he'd remain relevant, but you point to your editing history as a whole as proof you wouldn't be biased.

I would like further detail on how you'll handle certain situations brought up in the context of your self-imposed editing restriction before !voting support. As an example, Question 27 at your RfA brought up WP:PERM in that you might deny someone permissions for being a Trump supporter. Your answer is unclear now, because you said you wouldn't deny permissions to pro-Trump users (which was encompassed in your self-imposed t-ban), but there is still room for character judgements based on on-wiki conduct.

So, if this t-ban was revoked, would someone's support of Trump factor into whether you'd grant or deny that person permissions at WP:PERM? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Not wrong for @Chess: to ask—though fwiw I think it's fairly clear their answer would be "no" to this question given that would be required by site policy, so I feel the heuristic reason for support is sufficient. Given they are an admin, it's expected that they know policy. Remsense ‥ 论 04:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chess: I didn't say it was a tactical move. My point is it was a less impactful restriction in 2022 than it is in 2025. As to why I received (or, in this case, self-imposed) the restriction, my stated reason was to avoid any appearance of impropriety regarding topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which as far as I can recall is a class of one: my opposition to Mr. Trump. I believe that that reason is no longer applicable because my record as an administrator makes clear that, as I wrote in the same answer, when it comes to administrative matters I pick no favorites, and thus there is no reasonable appearance of impropriety, any more than for the average left-of-center admin. I have blocked liberals and conservatives, leftists and nationalists, some over things I strongly disagreed with, some over things I strongly agreed with. I've unblocked a sitting Republican member of Congress. I can't recall any user in good standing ever complaining that I was politically biased in my admin decisions. I've had people I blocked call me a biased communist because they were conservatives, and I've also had people I blocked call me a biased fascist because they were liberals. The largest politics-related drama I've gotten into since RfA was because I was opposed to how openly some Wikipedians were celebrating the death of Henry Kissinger. I can honestly tell you that, in all this time, the question of whether a given admin action would be good or bad for Donald Trump has never crossed my mind. I care about this site and enforcing its policies and values. And I think my record shows that.

As to Q27, I think you must have misread my answer: 'Are you going to go around denying permission requests from people with pro-Trump userboxen?': ... No. ... Granting or declining a permission request at PERM is an administrative action, not an expression of personal preference, and there is no leeway in it for character judgments, other than character judgments based on someone's on-wiki conduct. But if that answer was unclear, then I'll be more explicit: No. I would not deny a request at PERM because the user is a Trump supporter, and I've never said that I would. That is anathema to my view on the role of an administrator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support appeal. I was #14 among the opposes during Tamzin's RfA and several other editors mentioned my oppose when they later opposed. I still believe that Tamzin made a mistake in how they openly expressed their opposition to any Trump voter ever becoming an administrator. I otherwise considered Tamzin highly qualified, and the RfA succeeded with very heavy turnout and 75% support. At that point, I considered the matter over and done with, and still feel that way. Since then, Tamzin has been an excellent and thoughtful and even-handed administrator. With Trump back in the White House and engaging in highly controversial actions every day, and inexperienced new editors joining the fray, we need administrators of all political perspectives to keep an eye on every aspect of the Trump era. I trust Tamzin to do the right thing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support appeal. I trust Tamzin to approach the whatever situation in a generally reasonable manner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support and it's very commendable that you've gone about it this way rather than just, as I think most people would do, quietly dropping your RfA commitment. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Based on the Trump comments I was also concerned about Tamzin becoming an admin. However, since they RfA I've been impressed that their actions seem very well considered even in cases where I suspect their personal feeling and their admin... er wikilaw... actions don't align. I've also seen cases where they have tried to understand and reach out to editors who were acting less than ideally but likely out of frustration rather than because they were an overall problematic editor. The ability to gently pull an editor, who's opinions/views they likely don't share, back from the tban or worse edge vs simply letting them cross then acting is something I've admired in Tamzin and wished more admins would adopt. I have seen other admins do this but I feel it's the exception rather than the rule. Given that Trump won the last US election I think it would be hard to have to strictly abstain from any case involving Trump for the next couple of years. If nothing else, this does seem like a practical concern. Springee (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support The world is very different in 2025. I have absolutely no concerns that Tamzin will act abusively if we lift this restriction. Given Tamzin's history, I think it's more likely they'd take a break or voluntarily reimpose a restriction if they felt necessary. --Yamla (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Principled Support to a principled request, as Tamzin was not topic banned but gave themself a self-ban. Very nice use of this discussion page. I also support in principle with the hope and belief that Tamzin will give extra thought to their actions on the Trump pages in order to lay aside both their and other's personal feelings about the overall topic-range. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Suppport: I trust your judgement, and you've given us all good reason to. Based on our discussions and what I've seen from you I trust that you're able to recognize when you're unable to be entirely unbiased and recuse yourself if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, no concerns here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, the desire to tread cautiously and be open to feedback are welcome attributes, and are evidenced by the making of this request. CMD (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I did not believe this would be a problem then, and I still do not believe it to be one now. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support on the principle that administrators should be individuals who can be trusted to act neutrally in cases where there may be disagreements on political views and similar (I do believe the line should be firmly drawn at WP:NONAZIS, WP:NORACISTS and people whose views are in contradiction of WP:CHILDPROTECT, of course!). Tamzin has proven they can do this in other respects and therefore I have no concerns. Patient Zero^talk 01:05, 26 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.

Competent (Legal) issue over the newer replacement of Sikh Empire Map

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 looks like a legal threat is looming, so I feel I need to speak up because this situation has gotten out of hand. Recently, in a discussion about the this ambivalent case, a user named @Rawn3012 [41] kept reasserting a cartographical changes to a Sikh Empire map without any conclusive discussion[42]. The problem is that historical maps shouldn’t be changed back and forth without proper discussion, but he continued doing so without any reassurance. This made the situation worse because only a specific group with extended confirmed rights is allowed to make such changes. I thought about posting this issue on the administrator noticeboard, hoping that whatever decision comes from the consensus will be final and accepted. Now, we just have to wait and see what happens in the end. 2409:40D6:103:7C1E:2051:7A59:FF58:9232 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

2409:40D6:103:7C1E:2051:7A59:FF58:9232, you did post this issue on the Administrators' Noticeboard, right here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Did i done something wrong for now or it’s suddenly flicking on this interface @Liz 2409:40D6:103:7C1E:2051:7A59:FF58:9232 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not able to understand what is wrong with these new IPs(If they are not same). First, they commented on the article's talk page, and when I replied, they didn't respond and the same they did on Sutyarashi's talk page, and when responded again they did not answer me with a proper reply. Now, when I have been pinged here I would reply with the thing I said earlier both the maps old and new were created by me only and the map upgrade was simply intended to solve the concern raised here. (Last discussion)

Regards

Rawn3012 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• What I don't understand here is why there would be a legal issue over which map is the more visually appealing for the article? It's not as if the two versions display any information that is different. I also note that there has been a lot of activity from sockpuppets of banned editors on this article recently. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• This looks like a content dispute - which map is preferred in the article (I count at least five different ones in the history) - and should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. Though 2409:40D6:103:7C1E:2051:7A59:FF58:9232 should explain their comment that it "looks like a legal threat is looming". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:16, 26 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.

Threats and ad-hominems being used to bully 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.

---

Hi there,

I recently used the dispute resolution board in good faith to try to clarify/fix some issues with a contentious page.

Two users subsequently attacked me on the dispute resolution board and seemingly deleted my request for dispute resolution

A few things I read which made me believe Dispute Resolution was a good place to go: "This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia", "If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction." (this did not happen, I was attacked and the post was deleted)

A few instructions from the dispute resolution page: "Be civil". "Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible."

A few of the things they said which I believe are clear violations of those rules:

User Kovcszaln6 (User:Kovcszaln6):

"this dispute is ridiculous"

"continued rambling"

"if you continue with your behavior, expect to be blocked"

None of these statements are appropriate or conducive, and they attack and threaten me personally. I should not be afraid to try to use a tool that I believe is supposed to be there to help solve problems under threat of being banned. That is the exact behavior that I'm trying to bring the dispute resolution team in to help with, in fact. Further, calling my opinions or concerns "ridiculous" or the things that I write as "ramblings" are clearly against the rules of both the dispute resolution and other general Wiki rules to treat people with dignity and respect.

User Simonm223 User:Simonm223:

"I am tired of people..."

"Lincoln2020 and certain other very new editors don't appear willing to accept"

Also, unacceptable and ad-hominem based.

I'm not quite sure how to link directly to it and the edits these editors made, but personally I'm able to find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1277113869 and then search "Gulf of Mexico". Lincoln2020 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please stop bothering people about an RfC not going your way? At this point you've been told several times about how this works on Wikipedia but still you won't let it rest. This has become willfully disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

And this comment is closer to a personal attack than me pointing out you won't drop the stick over the Gulf of Mexico RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The dictatorial comments continue, even in an admin complaint board. I'm tired of your threats, Simonm223. You aren't going to bully me out of being "bold", as Wiki encourages us to. If I think something was done incorrectly and people (like yourself) bullied other people in order to keep a page how your political beliefs *clearly* lean, I will say so. So you can "drop the stick" over silencing me, because I'm going to stand up for myself and the others who you try to "aggressively clerk", as you put it.

The RfC was done incorrectly on multiple levels, and my DRN attempted to bring non-biased third party arbitrators into the discussion. Frankly I'd love to be uninvolved because I'm tired of feeling threatened. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

And to anyone else seeing this for the first time, sorry for the exasperation evident in my response. His recent post and subsequent posts and threats on Gulf of Mexico including his "Moratorium on this nonsense" are extremely rude and condescending. To constantly start off conversations with the faulty premise that anyone else's views are "nonsense" should be universally accepted to be inappropriate here. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_254#Gulf_of_Mexico, for convenience of editors. ✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 21:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess the question now is will Lincoln2020 drop the stick or should we start looking at a boomerang? Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why this DRN request was closed and archived so quickly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably because DRN explicitly cannot be used to overturned RfC results. Simonm223 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

While it's not really the topic of this complaint, although I guess it kind of is, the point of the argument in the DRN is that proper protocol for an RfC was not followed, and in fact it appears, at least to me, that an RfC wasn't actually done. So, if an RfC wasn't actually run (because the alleged RfC was run incorrectly), then why wouldn't a DRN be the place to look at that?

The RfC wasn't in the archives and didn't appear to follow procedures. That said, I haven't actually seen anywhere in the rules for DRN that you can't ask for resolution on something if an RfC is present (but of course I may be ignorant of the fact). Further, as stated in this complaint, I'm really concerned that, instead of helping like the DRN rules state, personal attacks were made. If there's a better place to contest what I believe to be a faulty and potentially incorrectly run RfC, the DRN rules state volunteers should point me in the right direction. Frankly I have no idea if there's a better place, and none of their attacks helped me understand better. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually agree with Lincoln2020. Simonm223, you haven't followed our civility policies at Talk:Gulf of Mexico and reading your edit history, you consistently use threats to get your way with new editors. You started off the recent "Moratorium on this nonsense" section by saying:[43]

I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 for a very long time if we don't start aggressively clerking this page.

Saying that editors who disagree with you are like the bad guys in 1984 is textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You then said to Lincoln2020 that:[44]

Wikipedia isn't debate club. Tendentious argument about a closed RfC is disruptive.

You can't start a discussion about a moratorium and accuse editors of being disruptive for opposing that moratorium. The fact you proposed banning additional discussions shows that you don't believe the consensus is obvious. Accusing Lincoln2020 of being disruptive for going to the WP:dispute resolution noticeboard is uncivil for the same reasons.[45] They're a new editor, and instead of going in circles with you, Lincoln2020 sought outside opinions from others at DRN. That is exactly the kind of mentality we should be encouraging, but you refused to WP:AGF and accused them of being tendentious. Even if it was procedurally incorrect, I don't see how it was disruptive.

To expand, at Talk:Soka School System less than a week ago, you resorted to threats in an attempt to resolve a dispute between two inexperienced editors:[46]

@Raoul mishima and @Kelvintjy you are both engaged in a slow-motion edit war. I am going to revert this page into whatever version it was in before the two of you started. If you continue edit warring after that point I will be filing a report to WP:ANEW regarding both of you. Please come to talk and discuss your edits.

Followed by:

OK, seriously, both of you are just talking past each other and casting aspersions. Frankly I'm starting to wonder if the best solution would be for both of you to accept a voluntary edit restriction from anything to do with Japanese New Religious Movements.

You are not an admin and that talk page was not an AE thread. You are not empowered to threaten editing restrictions. Even if you were an admin, I would consider it poor judgement to immediately move to a harsh threatening tone with two editors who have clearly never heard of the WP:edit warring policy (because anyone who had would've run to WP:ANEW by that point). But in this case, you're using your understanding of our policies and guidelines to put yourself in a position of authority/power over editors who are unfamiliar with them, a role the community never granted you. Experienced editors that imply "I know how to work the system, so you'll do what I say" is what turns a lot of people off from this website.

I can give more examples, like when a certain user assumed that you were an admin, and you replied Please note that, while I am a very experienced editor, I have chosen not to be an admin at this time to imply that you're so experienced, you basically could be an admin if you really wanted to.[47] You then mentioned their faulty assumption of your admin status as a WP:competence is required violation when taking that user to WP:AE.[48] If another editor assumes you're an admin, you should politely correct them, not imply you have the social status of an admin without actually being one.

Or finally, when you give "some private advice" at User talk:YuelinLee1959 in November of last year [49] that:

As a friendly word of advice, I'd suggest you go and do some editing somewhere that isn't culture-war adjacent video game articles... Experienced editors are likely to start suggesting you are not really interested in the project of building an encyclopedia. I'd gently suggest you visit WP:PUMP and do some reading on participation in Wikipedia including basic policies such as WP:RS instead of keeping an AN/I thread unnecessarily alive.

When you assert "experienced editors are likely to start suggesting you're WP:NOTHERE", you're implying that editors with more social capital will try to get that editor blocked if they don't get out of the topic area. Like, when you say "it'd be better for you if you leave this area" and make reference to a misfortune this editor might encounter, that is a veiled threat in the style of a movie.

These are all in the last four months. Threatening/intimidating new editors is a violation of the civility policy, regardless of whether you are "right" about the underlying conduct/content issues.

Full disclosure to admins, I disagree with Simonm223 in the underlying content dispute at Talk:Gulf of Mexico so I am involved. Liz, what do you think? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think any discussion of this incident has to involve User:Kovcszaln6 who closed the DRN and asserted that if the editor persisted they could "expect to be blocked". I do think this is pretty damning evidence against Simonm223 but I'd like to hear his response to this. I've noticed Simonm223 became more assertive and active in administrative activities after the ARBCOM2024 elections and, for my part, I've generally appreciated his increased involvement. And I think editors that work in contentious areas like American politics, where there are a lot of drive-by new editors, can easily become impatient with newbies that arrive with the similar questions that have been debated before. But we can't be BITEY even when we hear the same argument for the Nth time. If editors do not have the patience for this, they should find other areas of the project to work in.

I will just add that this is just my opinion as an editor/admin. It's recently been suggested to me that I become less involved in noticeboard discussions since I'm serving on the Committee now and my remarks reflect my opinion on general editor conduct, not an opinion on disputes in this subject area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Kovcszaln6 wasn't notified of this discussion so I have done so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Notified the people that I mentioned as being threatened.[50][51][52][53] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize for what I've said. It was incivil, and I should not have said that. However, DRN is not the right place to overturn the closure of the RfC nor discussing about the proposed moratorium. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Kovcszaln6. I'm not trying to be difficult, or a d***. I just don't think it was done correctly, and wanted another opinion / someone from the outside to come and look in on the process. I thought DRN was the right place to do so. Lincoln2020 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Kovcszaln6 was notified (at least on my end, with a refresh, it was present) - I'm not sure if he removed it from his talk page perhaps. I made sure to do that for both of them since they rushed to close my DRN over the technicality that I did in fact then miss the memo on notifying everyone (and I did run into 1 issue with Kov's page automatically classifying the notification as spam, so I tried it again and it appeared successful). Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

You didn't put the notice on his talk page, you put it on his user page. You also did that to Simonm223. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks. Lincoln2020 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Soka School System is not under WP:CTOP, despite being the most egregious example. That is what makes me concerned that this is something more than the average contentious topics civility violation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you checked the the incident that involved Raoul mishima and me? Until now, he is still making edit after MIA for a few days to weeks before making a lot of edit after making may editor to lose interest to talking with him? Until now, no action is being taken. Even Aaron Liu suggested that I be banned from editing in all Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda related article. That's mean you all need to ban me from more than 30 related articles that are related. [[54]] Kelvintjy (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

1. WP:Topic bans are not enforced by the software. How they work is that if you violate the ban, someone will block you manually.
2. Chess is not an admin. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Kelvintjy, you stuck an unrelated comment in the middle of a very long discussion that is on the verge of being closed any time now. I'm shocked that Aaron even noticed your remark. I'd advise you to respond to the existing discussion about the dispute you are in the middle of or start a new discussion thread. This one is not about your problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I was pinged. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chess, I disagree with the aspects related to the Gulf of America/Mexico dispute. Regarding the quote of Wikipedia isn't debate club. Tendentious argument about a closed RfC is disruptive., this is in response to Lincoln2020's comment that claimed that users abused the RfC process in a prior discussion. This didn't have much to do with the current discussion of putting a moratorium on the subject for a period of time.

Regarding your claim that The fact you proposed banning additional discussions shows that you don't believe the consensus is obvious. is a borderline false accusation. You claim that another user is acting in bad faith to shut down discussions because you believe that they think there isn't actually a consensus regarding the dispute. This is your claim despite there now being 90 archived discussion in the last two months that mainly talk about changing the article name or some other edit to the article regarding the Gulf of America executive order. This despite the repeated vandalism leading to the talk page getting semi protecting more than once. This despite known canvassing on the talk page. This despite users being banned for their actions that have broken our rules and guidelines. Maybe Chess, it is the disruption on the talk page that has lead to the moratorium discussion. (As an aside, I would advise that you strike out that text, unless you plan to back up your allegation.)

Regarding Saying that editors who disagree with you are like the bad guys in 1984 is textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, I believe you should re-look at that sentence as you would see that Simonm223 claimed the US is rewriting reality, not editors they disagree with. I think we're going to be stuck fielding whatabouts from the people who erroneously believe that the United States should be allowed to rewrite reality like O'Brien from 1984 for a very long time if we don't start aggressively clerking this page. (Both emphasis mine.) From my perspective, Simonm223's words are that the US is the one rewriting reality, not the editors. I believe you still have a claim that the comment as posted still should not have been posted, but the framing that Simonm223 is saying that those people are like the bad guys feels off in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

     Finally, your text regarding Lincoln2020 doing the right thing is very incorrect in my personal opinion. In fact, I would suggest that we should not be encouraging Lincoln2020's behavior with any sort of praise or positivity. To start with the 12th, Lincoln2020 made 11 minor edits in a span of 19 minutes to a variety of articles, granting them AUTOCONFIRM status. Lincoln2020 then proceeds to edit Talk:Gulf of Mexico 12 times in a span of under four hours, which was at the time and currently is semi-protected. (Per WP:PGAME, editors are not permitted to make trivial edits in order to gain the autoconfirmed or extended confirmed rights.) As for their edits to the talk page, you have their first edit which is their accusations that others are committing wrongdoing: This attempt to artificially halt debate reveals a concerning pattern of selective policy enforcement that undermines Wikipedia's collaborative foundation. When other geographical name changes occurred (Denali, etc), these same advocates rapidly implemented updates, citing WP:COMMONNAME as justification. Now, faced with a naming convention that doesn't align with their preferences, they're attempting to manipulate process controls to prevent legitimate discourse, misusing the term "consensus" in the process. (Emphasis mine.) Their next reply was to tell Valereee to assume good faith when she was attempting to determine who directed a user to participate in the moratorium discussion, which did lead to them apologizing to Valereee later on when she pointed it out. Speaking of Valereee, when she pointed out the PGAME issue, Lincoln2020 replied to her with the following: Please let me know which of my points are illogical or invalid, otherwise let's perhaps stop with the ad hominems.

To speed this up a bit, Lincoln2020's fourth non-minor edit to the talk page was more allegations of wrongdoing by others and some uncivility: If debate were 'allowed' (...) one side of this debate has been engaging in abuses of the process (...) when in fact they were thinly veiled partisan attacks. (...) there is most definitely a compromise and consensus to be made amongst reasonable people. (Emphasis mine.) Sixth edit was the claim that there was no consensus nine days after the RfC closed: And also, the entire point is that a consensus hasn't been made. A consensus would look like "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" with some acknowledgement of the fact that the largest map source in the world, all official sources of the government with the largest population and control of the body of water, and the only English-speaking nation bordering the body of water, all call it "Gulf of America". (...) It's clear something has to give, and some compromise has to be made ... the inability to make any compromise at all is the antithesis of "consensus". Eight was saying in the moratorium discussion that the article should be renamed per COMMONNAME. (Again, the RfC had been closed for nine days at this point.) Their tenth and final non-minor edit that day was a reply after they were told by Simonm223 that they were litigating a closed RfC and that they thought Lincoln2020 had reached the point of disruptive editing and told by Departure– that (...) consensus will not be made by re-opening an RFC. Lincoln2020 used their reply to mention that Google claimed there had been double the publications for Gulf of America over Gulf of Mexico before ending with this: Like it or not, a moratorium seems to be a desperate attempt to delay the inevitable. We're going to have to come to a consensus, so why is one side of this argument so unwilling to make any compromise? (Emphasis mine.)

Lincoln2020 would leave the talk page briefly at that point, but returned on the 18th twice more with additional uncivil behavior and allegations. First edit from the 18th: (...) Also, there very clearly is no consensus to do nothing. Just saying it doesn't make it true; there was not vote, poll, or otherwise, just a pretty typical ultra-political push from Wikipedians void of logic or actual efforts to find consensus which destroys people's trust in the platform. (Emphasis mine.) Second edit from the 18th: This, of course, is spot on, and far too rational for this discussion. After that, they went to DRN the next day where they claimed Valereee closed the RfC improperly and made "some policy violations." When the DRN was closed as out of process and they were warned that their behavior up to this point might lead to a block, they went silent until 48 hours ago. In that time, they told Simonm223 that "your opinion is meaningless"; made this discussion; improperly edited the user pages of Simonm223 and Kovcszaln6; Simultaneously claim that "an RfC wasn't actually done" and that the RfC "didn't appear to follow procedures" along with accusing users of attacks; they go after Simonm223 again with claims that they are being silenced by Simonm223 and add an additional claim regarding the RfC, "[t]he RfC was done incorrectly on multiple levels"; and finally claiming Simonm223 was uncivil at the Gulf of Mexico talk page, ending with the following: To constantly start off conversations with the faulty premise that anyone else's views are "nonsense" should be universally accepted to be inappropriate here.

Chess, I don't see much in the way of encouraging here with most of it being disruptive. Most of what I have seen is evidence that they need to take at least a month away from American politics, possibly longer. The only encouraging edits were the few they have made to articles, though most of the edits were minor with at least one that can be considered partially reverted. If you want to continue your complaint against Simonm223, then you obviously can continue, but I think you should consider not referring to things involving both Simonm223 and Lincoln2020. Additionally, you might want to re-review the other editors you believe that they threatened or intimidated to ensure that there are no similar problems. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm that it is difficult to stick to neutral language when a faulty premise is included in a moratorium post ("moratorium on this nonsense"). I suppose coming here or reporting the abuses I was seeing would have been better than discussing them on the "talk" page first, although I suppose I still believe that a "talk" page is still a good place to "talk" about things like that. Ultimately I did attempt to create a DRN to bring some neutrality into the conversation as it was obviously heated and contentious.

I was forced to come here with my complaints, and I stick by the complaints. I wholeheartedly believe that some people, including Simonm223, are attempting to abuse the process by attacking people and abusing processes (like biased moratorium arguments), and the "aggressive clerking" threats make that pretty clear, in my opinion. This was made even more clear when they inappropriately closed my attempt to have the DRN help the situation.

So from my perspective, I've attempted this whole time to use the processes that Wikipedia gives us to use in order to settle contentious debates. Meanwhile others have used condescending, threatening, and abusive language consistently. I want to have these issues arbitrated and believe the greater Wiki community can help make the discussions constructive, while they seem to prefer anyone who disagrees with them stop participating. Lincoln2020 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, rereading this ... it seems as though Super Goku V is trying to frame my true statements (generally responses to what I believe are policy violations and intimidation tactics) as the issue.

A saying comes to mind: "The truth is an absolute defense against defamation." Likewise, I believe my statements are accurate and the facts will show them to be; perhaps one or two have some opinion behind them, but reading over many of the comments in Gulf of Mexico, I still wholeheartedly believe most reasonable people would agree that the conversation is politicized and out of control (hence starting my quashed DRN). Most of those opinions - of which I am allowed to have even if you don't agree with them - were not geared toward any one person, and were civil. I believe the only one which was perhaps not was in response to an editor who took to my talk page to threaten me, and I replied that their threats won't intimidate me. I then immediately came here.

"To constantly start off conversations with the faulty premise that anyone else's views are "nonsense" should be universally accepted to be inappropriate here." - I would love to know how this opinion is "uncivil" as you claim so that I can correct it and make it more civil. I'll add that in the actual post accompanying that title, they compared those who disagree with them with villains from 1984, used phrases like "erroneously believe", and threatened to "aggressively clerk" people. Lincoln2020 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Lincoln2020, I believe you are part of the issue and are partly at fault here. I personally believe your actions qualify for a BOOMERANG. To give you an explanation of what I am referring to: In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's behavior in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report. Basically, I don't think you have clean hands here and have not followed Civility. Reading your first reply says that you had a difficult time sticking to using neutral language and an admission that the discussion was heated and contentious, before backtracking in your second reply by saying that most of your opinions were civil. You can try to claim that 'your true statements' were without issue, but I have linked to most of your replies above and given reasons as to why they were problematic.

If you claim that the issue of "stick[ing] to neutral language" was only when you participated in the discussion at Talk:Gulf of Mexico, then why were there issues I linked above from your talk page with your reply to Simonm223 and linked from this discussion? Can you address them? Your claim that you went to DRN for neutrality. I can agree that you went there to try to get some sort of resolution and for help on the situation. However, can you clarify this edit then? It is the one where you added Chess and Chessrat as involved users. I don't see how they were tied to your dispute resolution regarding either the RfC or the moratorium when it looks like they never replied to you on the talk page. Am I missing something obvious here?

I am asking these questions because my perspective does not agree with I've attempted this whole time to use the processes that Wikipedia gives us to use in order to settle contentious debates. In my view, your words have been contentious and have crossed the line at times into uncivil behavior. You didn't have CLEANHANDS when starting the DRN process. Plus, even in these response you still seem to have an Us vs. Them mentality. You keep going after other users rather than addressing your own behavior. Personally, I don't believe you have gotten a grasp of how Contentious topics work on Wikipedia. I believe you should avoid American politics that are considered contentious topics for a month or more and focus on other parts of the Wiki. I don't think you are ready for it based on your responses. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Lincoln2020 is entirely without blame. Many of the new editors that Simonm223 has interacted with in negative ways have had issues. But at the same time, if another editor is violating guidelines, threatening is not an appropriate response. Ignoring the interactions between Simonm223 and Lincoln2020 because both parties have been uncivil isn't a good mentality.

• With respect to the specific points you make, Lincoln2020 did not violate WP:PGAME. My experience at WP:AE is that making simple-but-constructive edits is not permission gaming. [55]
• I never said the moratorium was an attempt to shut down discussions in bad faith. I agree that there should be a discussion on the moratorium before its actually enforced, but that calling people disruptive for opposing the moratorium at that discussion is unjustified.
• So Simonm223 didn't accuse others of literally being 1984. They implied that other editors supported a 1984-like situation. That's still wrong.
• Arguing that a proposal would selectively enforce our policies is a valid criticism to make in a content dispute. When Lincoln2020 accused someone of intentionally manipulating the system, that was disruptive. However, simply calling out a double standard is not, because a double standard can happen for a variety of good-faith reasons including implicit bias.

However, what our policies consistently tell editors to do when encountering uncivil or disruptive behaviour is to bring it to WP:Arbitration Enforcement/WP:DRAMABOARD. Responding yourself with incivility is generally not acceptable. You haven't really shown anything in your comments except "Lincoln2020 is also at fault", I don't really see you defending what Simonm223 has said in the many other examples I've provided either. I regularly see the mentality in contentious areas that because someone else is doing something wrong, a specific editor should be let off the hook. I am dismissive of that because it turns topic areas into vast wastelands where it is considered acceptable behaviour for editors to violate the rules to gain an advantage solely because others do it as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In reverse order to address something: I don't really see you defending what Simonm223 has said in the many other examples I've provided either. I do not understand why you said this. I already said at the start of the two replies that I was posting with regard to the aspects related to the Gulf of America/Mexico dispute. I never touched upon anything outside of the Gulf talk pages for a reason as I did not participate at those other venues nor do I have any familiarity with their subjects to my current knowledge. I wrote at the end of the two replies that you could still continue your complaint, but you should consider not focusing on the stuff involving both Simonm223 and Lincoln2020 and that, if you did, you should re-review the situations with the other editors to ensure that there were not similar issues that I felt diminished your arguments. To go back to normal order, if you don't feel that it is a good mentality to put it to the side, then fine, but I feel that it bogs things down when it isn't as cut and dry. At the least, it shouldn't be the focus if this goes elsewhere.

Looking at that AE thread, one of the points I am seeing is that there was significant substance in their edits and that they were not trivial ones. As I mentioned, the edits made above were primarily minor ones with at least one reverted. You can review them here, but I still say that they are minor overall like "balanced with production" → "balanced by the production" or changing "pre-Cambrian" → "precambrian" and getting indirectly reverted the following day. (Additionally, if they kept making those changes then it wouldn't be gaming, but they stopped an edit after they received the permission and have made only three other edits to the mainspace since. I don't think it fits with what Seraphimblade said in that case.)

Chess, how else am I suppose to take, "The fact you proposed banning additional discussions shows that you don't believe the consensus is obvious?" Your prior sentence mentions Simonm223 starting the moratorium discussion, which I feel is reflected in the 'you proposed banning additional discussions' part. The only other reading I can possibly see is that your saying that he doesn't believe the consensus is obvious in regards to the moratorium discussion itself, which hasn't closed yet at the present time.

I agree with your third bullet-point, though am slightly confused by you telling me that it is still wrong. Again, my wording above was that I thought you still could have a claim here that the comments should not have been posted. I was disagreeing with you on how it was framed.

I believe your fourth bullet point is about the DRN discussion. If so, I have two problems with it. First is that it was the third time they had gone after another user in a week, this being Valereee. The second is alleging that she had somehow improperly concluded the RfC while simultaneously claiming that there never was an RfC. Even yesterday they said, and in fact it appears, at least to me, that an RfC wasn't actually done. How can a user claim that someone violated policy when they closed an RfC and then go on to say that there was never an RfC in the first place?

Anyways to wrap up, I don't fully agree with your take on Simonm223 above, but that's just my opinion. I do hope you will consider what I wrote at the least going forward. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand, why do we say everywhere like the FAQ and in the closed DRN that there was consensus against including it in the lead when the closing statement was no consensus? Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Never mind I worked it out. The closing statement was later modified but for some reason the FAQ still links to the original one. I'm fairly sure this is causing a lot of confusion so can someone fix this ASAP? I'm on mobile and so can't be bothered finding the right permalink. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed it myself now that I'm on desktop. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, fudge. That was my fault. I never considered changing the link when I edited the FAQ text. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Stuff happens and it's probably not as bad as I feared. Main reason I thought it was causing a lot of confusion beyond myself was because I saw a lot of people referring to no consensus in the moratorium proposal, but I later realised that most or all of these came before the clarification (and in fact these comments moratorium seems to have been one of the reasons for the clarification). Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

From a largely outsider perspective, while I can understand the frustrations of dealing with new editors blustering all over the place, I do think a greater level of patience will help a great deal. For example, in the closed RfC, Lincoln2020 was criticised for their I do not see an RfC comment. But reading it in context I'm fairly sure what they were saying is that they feel the RfC was improperly conducted because it was not listed in our RfC lists. I guess they checked Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive and didn't see it listed. Maybe they even checked the edit history of the all page or something else and found it wasn't there either. In this case a simple explanation could have been offered. Something like: it wasn't listed in the centralised discussion list because it wasn't important enough for there something which seems reasonable. It was in the history and geography [56] [57] and politics, government and law [58] [59] RfC lists until it expired which was a while after the initial closure which happened before the 30 day mark. This means it would have been in the all page but doesn't show up in the edit history as that page just shows stuff listed elsewhere. So it was properly listed as with all general RfCs. The level of attendance suggests it was very well known about in any case. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a note, I had the idea I might have said something somewhere about this, and have now confirmed I did ask a single clarifying comment in that RfC. I still consider myself largely uninvolved as I didn't express an opinion and my question could be interpreted benefit either "side" depending on the result which I had no idea what it would be. (I did express an opinion on the loosely related Denali RM. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Woke up to quite a few pings. Yes, since the arbcom election I have been very active at admin noticeboards. In part this is because the feedback I got there was somewhat encouraging that I might want to consider being an admin but that is something I don't know if I want. In the case of Soka School I honestly went into that conflict trying to tamp down an edit dispute that was out of hand. I was sadly unsuccessful but certainly was not trying to bully. As for Gulf of Mexico: I am simply very tired of the argument and would like to see a stable article. As far as I was concerned: there was an RfC and it had a clear outcome. That should have been the end of it. I was tagged into DRN. At the time I asked Lincoln2020 to close it as out of order. It was closed for them first and asked them to take the closer's recommendations onboard. This is not bullying. This is wanting the argument to stop. I would actually like to disengage from Lincoln2020 but they keep bringing this dispute, which I saw as settled, up in different venues. I'm not sure how I am at fault that another editor keeps trying to pull me back into this dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, I agree with you that you're not bullying, and I believe you would make a fine admin. AFAIC, Chess is casting aspersions (such as "you're using your understanding of our policies and guidelines to put yourself in a position of authority/power over editors who are unfamiliar with them, a role the community never granted you. Experienced editors that imply "I know how to work the system, so you'll do what I say" is what turns a lot of people off from this website.") and complaining about very normal comments from you. I don't see a "harsh threatening tone", and you are perfectly well "empowered", as are all editors, to suggest editing restrictions. Bishonen | tålk 12:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC).

I thank you for the words of support Bishonen.

However, now that I am more fully awake I do want to revisit what happened at Soka School a bit and ask a few questions to the admins here regarding my own conduct. Because, in that case, I didn't come into that conflict with a strong opinion on content and was sincerely trying to be helpful.

I'm not going to tag the other involved editors because this post isn't supposed to be relitigating their conduct but rather this is me asking for feedback on my own. I came to that situation seeing two editors involved in a conflict of a type I see often at admin noticeboards and, because it was a conflict on a minor subset of pages to do with Buddhism, I recognized it as the sort of thing that often gets lost in the noise of AN/I. However I know from my prior experience in the Falun Gong CTOP that, if I had called a member of that new religious movement a cultist, I would be quite rightly topic banned from editing FLG articles.

East Asian new religious movements, particularly those that come from Buddhist or Taoist backgrounds, are something of a specialty of mine. I did a lot of sociological work on the subject when I was a student and have continued reading on the topic throughout my life since. As such, when I saw an editor being called a cultist in that context I felt it was somewhere where I could help and, I hoped at the time, avoid the need for admin intervention.

What I found was a complicated situation involving two editors who did have very strong feelings about the topic. I tried to encourage both of them to article talk, as well as warning them about the likely consequences of continuing as they were, because I was trying to get them to talk to each other. And if you look at my comportment there most of my messages to them at article talk were asking them to cease edit warring, come to article talk and engage with each other.

About all I managed to do was to get the one who had been previously accused of being a cultist to listen to me. The other editor pretty much just ignored my advise and carried on.

At all steps I reported back to AN/I if something happened that might actually require an admin's intervention.

What I was trying to do was handle an entrenched editor conflict while knowing I did not have admin tools. If I choose to become an admin I want to know that I have the skills to do that. I honestly was somewhat discouraged by the results. But I certainly never intended to bully either party. So my question to admins here is this:

How should a person who is considering becoming an admin and wants to practice the skills admins require comport themselves in a similar situation? I had sincere, and helpful, motivations for my actions there and I'm actually somewhat aghast at myself that this isn't what was seen by others. I would like to do better at this. I don't personally consider my actions at Soka School to be successful. This edit was effectively me admitting I had not been able to solve the problem there.

I'm sincerely sorry if I over-reached in that case. What would be a more appropriate way to engage these skills in the future? Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

For clarity I meant in the closed DRN, sorry for any confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I see a metric ton of text about some bland "insults" that wouldn't get a grade schooler in trouble. There's barely any smoke, let alone fire. Is there anything if substance here in the piles of quoted mild rudeness? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  • No, EvergreenFir, but you get a cookie for reading through this entire complaint! Two cookies if you looked at all of the diffs, too. How about this discussion be closed with a reminder to all editors to remember to be civil even (or especially) with editors you disagree? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

    I would also agree with that. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

    I concede my callout (16:36, Feb 12) was misplaced—new to WP:AE, I should’ve used admin boards sooner, although my central complaint here is that they abused the admin board to silence my attempt to find neutrality. Just like they promised to do - "aggressively clerking".

    Simonm223’s process misuse persists despite him being a veteran here: my DRN (faced a block threat), and my talk page got an aggressive threat. His 'if nobody can take away the US president's crayons we may have to suffer through four years of nonsense like this. Best to show early on that reality does not bend to the whims of a fool with an army.’, "absurdity of the request", (Jan 29, 01:33) and ‘aggressive clerking’ (Feb 11, 14:57) breach WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA/WP:NPOV and imply that he's willing to be an activist here to prevent future edits. This bias—e.g., ‘warm bodies’ on Trump’s GOP (Feb 25, 13:52)—risks WP:NPOV on Trump-related pages like Gulf, or Donald Trump, or the other vast number of ultra political articles he's participating on, meriting oversight beyond Gulf conduct. Not to mention the myriad of well researched and documented issues Chess brought up.

    His behavior very clearly warrants a 'moratorium for his nonsense'. And please - come at me for calling it nonsense, because he has a huge post on Gulf claiming anyone who disagrees with him and their views are nonsense. I'd welcome the double standard at this point. If you don't like that people are getting defensive and angry because someone is being a bully - handle the bully. And the irony is that he has a civility barnstar. Perhaps a week or two break from contentious articles would help him remember why he earned that in 2018. Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

    I'm trying to stay quiet here and listen but I do want to provide a diff for my warm bodies comment [60]. Apologies for the length. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also ... grade schoolers don't have to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV. While your point holds that these things would be mild in most contexts, it's the fact that it's a pattern of intimidation tactics and bias bleeding into web pages with millions of viewers, with nothing less than the credibility of Wikipedia on the line. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than grade schoolers, should we not? Lincoln2020 (talk) 15:22, 26 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.

Noting that the original complaint has now been refiled at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Intimidation_tactics,_suppression_and_other_violations_from_Simonm223 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedia editors and 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.

---

• News: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/26/heritage-foundation-presentation-details-plans-to-doxx-and-target-wikipeda-editors-it-claims-are-abusing-their-position

• The Heritage Foundation

Hatting this. I'm not sure if WP:BEANS applies but... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Heritage details: The Heritage Foundation (sometimes referred to simply as "Heritage") is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1973, it took a leading role in the conservative movement in the 1980s during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage Foundation studies, including its Mandate for Leadership. The Heritage Foundation has had significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and has historically been ranked among the most influential public policy organizations in the United States. In 2010, it founded a sister organization, Heritage Action, an influential activist force in conservative and Republican politics. Heritage leads the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, also known as Project 2025, an extensive plan that includes appointing ideologically aligned civil servants, restricting abortion access, opposing LGBTQ+ rights, transforming federal agencies for political purposes, and imposing strict immigration policies. The New York Times reported The Heritage Foundation posted misinformation about the 2024 US election and crafted faked videos claiming that noncitizens would rig the 2024 US election. Heritage Wikipedian Doxxing Plan details Wikipedia editor targeting: https://forward.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Heritage-Wikipedia-Oversight-Project-Forward.pdf Archive of that: https://web.archive.org/web/20250108002135/https://forward.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Heritage-Wikipedia-Oversight-Project-Forward.pdf From PDF: Overview: Identify and target Wikipedia editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting. Fingerprinting: Text Analysis: Use NLP to identify writing style, repeated phrases, and content patterns. Cross-Article Comparison: Detect similarities in multiple articles, focusing on propagandist themes. Behavioral Patterns: Analyze edit frequency, topic focus, and collaboration behavior. Historical Comparison: Track revert-and-restore behavior for coordinated agenda. Username Analysis and Dataset Correlation: Username Profiling: Analyze naming patterns and cross-reference usernames across platforms. Reuse in Breached Data: Search breached datasets for reused names, emails, and online identities. Cross-Platform Analysis: Identify connections between usernames and other online activities. Technical Fingerprinting (Controlled Domain Redirects): Controlled Links: Use redirects to capture IP addresses, browser fingerprints, and device data through a combination of in browser fingerprinting scripts and HTML5 canvas techniques * * * Technical Data Collection: Track geolocation, ISP, and network details from clicked links Cross-Session Tracking: Follow device or browser sessions through repeated visits by setting cookies. User is only on domain for < 2 seconds prior to redirection Online Human Intelligence (HUMINT): Persona Engagement: Engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure Behavioral Manipulation: Push specific topics to expose more identity related details Cross-Community Targeting: Interact across platforms to gather intelligence from other sources.

Sharing if needed to be discussed or communicated to editors if there is legal, personal, civil, political or physical risk to editing Wikipedia now in the USA due to conservatives. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed here. Btw the original post here looks very much like it was generated by an LLM. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any LLM here. The bulk is literally copy-pasted straight out of the Heritage Foundation plan document which I linked. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I see now. Sorry for maligning you incorrectly. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• But the subject was already brought up at the VP. It's good to be informed about these plots but I'm not sure what the admin community should be doing about this strategy by an outside group. They aren't the first organization that has sought to use Wikipedia for their own purposes. Media organizations, PR agencies, groups on discussion boards and websites, governments and private individuals have tried tracking articles and editors in the past. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just for the edification of @Very Polite Person the community has taken some steps here already - the Heritage Foundation has been added to the spam blacklist and Wikipedia editors will not be able to link directly to Heritage Foundation URLs. They're also now considered an unreliable source. Beyond that, at VPP and other places, knowledge has been shared with editors on digital privacy and protecting themselves in the event of a dox or similar incident. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 27 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.

Bureaucratic waste and cleanup of contentious topics

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.

---

Many contentious topics are hardly ever mentioned about on Wikipedia or in real life and it is a bureaucratic waste to have them as contentious topics. Some have entire logs that administrators who sanction a user have to put a log in which only wastes bureaucracy. Many pages under so called "contentious topics" that if were fully unprotected, would not experience vandalism. That is why I request that these community-authorized sanctions are removed: GS/SCW&ISIL, GS/UKU, GS/CRYPTO, GS/PW, GS/PAGEANT. 135.180.61.27 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

There may even be a case for GS/Michael Jackson. 135.180.61.27 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:VPPR is now the place for making these sorts of proposals (see WP:GS#Community sanctions). If you do decide to go that route, I would suggest picking one topic and explaining in detail why sanctions are no longer necessary. I would probably be on board with repealing some of these, but the community has been pretty hesitant to get rid of even the most sparsely used ones. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The case for keeping WP:GS/CRYPTO is still very strong; crypto/Nasty Fucking Thievery/Web3 spam hasn't gone away. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the OP's edit history I have to raise an eyebrow as to the reasoning for their request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The crypto GS were discussed about ~7 months ago where the community affirmed the need for them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive363#Crypto General Sanctions Review. While there weren't that many participants and the proposer probably didn't help the proposal (although this seems the same), it seems to me it was enough to suggest it's not worth discussing now 7 months later since GS isn't the sort of thing where it will be clear enough that it's settled down in such a short period. And crypto in particular seems an area, where if anything it's heated up again with the trend of meme coins combined with rug pulls, and the occasional pump and dump. I do wonder if it might be worth considering something for GS like arbcom's automated expiration of GS in the absence of logged actions over a 2 year period, but perhaps this isn't the thread to start that discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree that most general sanctions exist for good reasons and, if the topic areas aren't being disrupted, that generally suggests that GS is doing its job. I would also support that the GS on cryptocurrency is particularly vital. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I would not describe the pageant or pro wrestling sanctions as a 'bureaucratic waste', but needed protection against the worst of the worst (whom I've dealt with and are very unpleasant to reason with); there's very good reason we have them for those topics, and some of them cross right into the fake Internet money sphere without a sweat. Nathannah • 📮 22:39, 26 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.

Template update

Hello. Would an administrator please update Template:Editnotices/Page/List of NHL statistical leaders, as we're now in the 2024–25 NHL season GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guideline against use of AI images in BLPs and medical articles?

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:Image use policy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Posted at 01:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Special:Diff/1278023207

Reasoning: The close merely restated the positions of the opposing sides in this RfC. It did not weigh between the arguments and explain how the closer reached their conclusion. Additionally, while there is clearly consensus for the BLP aspect (per this close of a subsidary discussion), the consensus for barring all AI-generated medical images is not at all clear.

Closer (AI image RfC)

"It did not weigh between the arguments and explain how the closer reached their conclusion.

Because the consensus was very clear, as you yourself have said. An editor even asked why the RfC consensus wasn't closed in a way to ban AI-generated images site wide[61].

"the consensus for barring all AI-generated medical images is not at all clear."

On my talk page you never said that you don't think there was a consensus for banning AI-generated medical images. You simply reiterated your point about missing arguments. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (AI image RfC)

• Reopen: Upon a quick review while waiting for admin review of another matter, I reviewed this closure. The closure commentary did not give adequate weight to supporters of limited use of AI images in medical contexts. There is an argument (the 1 in 100 baseball example) that is particularly compelling but unaddressed in the closure statement. I recommend a review of the closure logic or a reopening of the RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw31415 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Participants (AI image RfC)

Discussion (AI image RfC)

• There was only limited discussion with the closer before this was posted but it can be found at User talk:TurboSuperA+#AI-generated imagery close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't agree with your characterization of the discussion (which has 18 comments over two days) as limited. Several editors raised objections, and Turbo refused to budge. Further discussion was unlikely to lead to Turbo reverting their close. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Turbo refused to budge."

  I asked voorts to name an argument I missed and why that argument was important to be mentioned. Their response was: "The issue is that I don't know what arguments you missed or didn't because you didn't summarize them".

  I said that doesn't make sense, especially after an RfC with a clear consensus (and voorts admits the consensus was clear). TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I said the consensus RE BLPs is clear – but it was already clear before your close because someone else had already closed that discussion. The consensus about medical images, however, was not. I can't name an argument you missed because you didn't summarize the arguments. As I said on your talk page, it is literally impossible for me to know what arguments you did or did not consider because you didn't state them. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  "The consensus about medical images, however, was not."

  That is the first time you bring this up. And if the consensus wasn't clear, then how come an editor asked me why the RfC close didn't say that there was a consensus to ban AI-generated imagery in general?[62] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Joelle also suggested self-reverting your close. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, because they said there was consensus to ban all AI-imagery site-wide (the opposite of your complaint in this thread that there wasn't a consensus for banning AI-generated imagery in medical contexts).

  I actually missed that comment. I'm going to revert my close, but I think this close review should still happen, so that the next closing editor can avoid a close review. It seems that no matter the outcome, someone will be unhappy. So far the two complaints are: 1) there isn't a consensus to ban all medical-related AI-imagery, 2) there is a consensus to ban all AI-generated imagery site-wide. The two are at odds with one another, perhaps more editors need to weigh in on what the consensus actually is. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, there's another section of discussion at User talk:TurboSuperA+#Recent VP closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing that out, Extraordinary Writ. Adjective struck, Voorts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 28 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 protecting WP:RA/BAE

Moving discussion here from WP:RPPI by recommendation. (Given the inactivity of the WikiProject Requested articles,) some of the subpages of WP:RA are unmoderated and prone to accumulating cruft. I assumed it might be an issue across the entire project, but Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics stands out as exceptionally unmoderated, with the occasional attempted intervention to little long-term success; I echo CactusWriter's assessment (from another subpage) that this has been "unpreventable by pending changes setting". I encourage browsing the last year or so of contributions to WP:RA/BAE.

I am requesting semi-protection on WP:RA/BAE and all its subpages.

I initially proposed protection on the entire project (partly based on IP users simply gravitating to the next unprotected subpage), but upon review, it seems like the majority of the other pages are cultivated more actively. Tule-hog (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't we want those pages to accumulate cruft? Their essentially sole purpose is as a place to divert some COI editors to in lieu of spamming—with the worst bits conveniently subpaged off and not transcluded, so that anyone actually looking for an article to write about a business topic doesn't even need to look at them. A better proposal might just be having a bot remove entries after a year, when whichever hapless intern added the entry to show their boss "See, I did it" has hopefully moved on to some other company. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There's one IPv6/64 that's made over 4500 new article requests. That goes beyond being diverted. I've now blocked them from Wikipedia:Requested articles. I don't know if that block covers the subpages. If not, it can be readjusted.

Maybe that'll help. Their favorite target was business and economics. 2804:14C:5BB1:9473:0:0:0:0/64 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Ehh. I changed the block to the Wikipedia namespace. Looks like each of the requested articles subpages are separately listed.

This /64 has also been sniping at @Tule-hog, which is how I started picking up on this issue. For example, there's a report at UAA: Special:Permalink/1261179669#User-reported 2 I've notified the last active member of the /64 of this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Was writing a response and collected some diffs but no need for that now I suppose. Might be feasible to permit requests via the talk pages, as they have made some meaningful requests.

Thanks for pointing me to the report - I was certainly confused about these edits (funnily enough, just brushed them off as a dog whistle I wasn't picking up on).

Is it a checkuser/admin feature to check a /64 range edit count (of IP users), or is that public somewhere? Tule-hog (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Huh, I had no idea XTools could do this, but apparently [63] works. It says the /64 has 4,869 edits, 85% of them to projectspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

3,359 edits to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics! If you did want them to have access to the associated talk pages, I could change the block to the 10 most-used pages of that /64.

If you look at article space, this /64 is also problematic. I think the IP hopping nature of IPv6 is causing trouble in detecting long-term issues, as each individual member of the /64 range is usually viewed separately when looking at contributions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: A block from WPspace doesn't affect WTspace, so the block as-is should work fine. And yeah, this is a longstanding issue with fast-rotating IPv6s. For better or for worse, it'll be addressed once we switch to temporary accounts, as those are cookie-based rather than IP-based. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Special:Diff/1277518873 could be a coincidence but unlikely given 103.152.255.235's block log and interacting with the same page as the /64. Tule-hog (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Goodness the team over at SPI does some deep digging. Officially filing there. Tule-hog (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That IPv4 is unlikely to be connected to the IPv6. Different continents, though there is proxy use on the IPv4. The redirect changes are a bit different between the IPv4 and IPv6. The IPv6 user is probably a native Spanish speaker and is interested in fascism and socialism. TyMega IPs are typically on a different continent than either the IPv4 or the IPv6. But, no harm in asking. They won't be able to announce whether checkuser links the IP users to TyMega for privacy purposes. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The IPv4 is a VPN, now blocked. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

User still skirting block via proxy. Tule-hog (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tule-hog that these backwater "Requested biography article" pages can be problematic -- not just packed with cruft but persistently loaded with BLP issues. They are also rarely watched. I worked on cleaning up the BLP problems about 15 years ago then moved on and only recently returned to remove a lot of questionable entries. Wizardman has also done a lot of work there and instituted pending changes to some pages 10 years ago. But I find that the pending changes are being too readily accepted -- especially when a single IP jams in dozens of entries at a time -- and are no longer effective at keeping out the bad entries. And the one particular IPv6 mentioned rotates so quickly that any blocks seem ineffective. Instead, I chose to restrict access to only autoconfirmed accounts with short term protections (30 days). I think it may be best to extend these protections indefinitely. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have semi-protected WP:RA/BAE, since the block doesn't seem to be working. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I may request protection of the following subpages in future as well, depending on the efficacy of protecting the main page:

• /Organizations
• /People in business
• /Companies/A-E
• /Companies/F-L
• /Companies/M-S
• /Economic theory and history/A-E
• /Economic theory and history/M-S
• /Economic theory and history/T-Z
• /Finance

Tule-hog (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Collecting RA pages with recent block evasion by the IP user:

• /Mathematics
• /Social sciences
• /Applied arts and sciences/Technology and tools
• /Social sciences/Religion
• /Natural sciences/Physics
• /Medicine
• /Social sciences/History
• /Arts and entertainment
• /Politics and government
• /Economic theory and history/F-L
• /Companies/T-Z
• /Economics terminology

Tule-hog (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of RfC closure at Talk:Genocide

This RfC was closed by AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 January 2025.

I have discussed the closure with them at their talk page: Part 1 and Part 2, but I was busy earlier and couldn't bring it here. AirshipJungleman29 was also recently on vacation [64].

This RfC followed a previous attempt at WP:DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_251#Genocide

Main issues for review include:

1. Strength of arguments. There were quotes from introductory chapters of high-quality WP:Secondary overview sources, such as the Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. There were also quotes from genocide entries in WP:Tertiary sources such as the Social Science Encyclopedia. This should be clear in terms of WP:DUE

2. Potential misrepresentation of my position. I was also in favor of a general expansion, not just adding two more examples [65] [66]. One of the options in the RfC was about general expansion.

3. Potential for WP:Involved. When I brought some of these genocides at Talk:Human history/GA2, AirshipJungleman29 seemed sceptical [67]. Following further discussion, some of these were later added into the article [68] [69].

Additionally, the RfC closure includes comments on editors. I have never seen an RfC closed this way. Usually, it's just about content.

My questions to other editors such as this this were also called "WP:BADGERing". My aim was simply this: [70]. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 was notified about this discussion. [71] Bogazicili (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Genocide RfC)

• @Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93: your comments from a different close review below have been cited by Isaidnoway in their closure endorsement, recommending me to refrain from behavior evaluation in future closes.

WP:ACD, while an essay, is widely cited; it advises that "Some closures may also require understanding of Wikipedia’s culture, dispute resolution procedures, behavioral standards, etc." (emphasis mine). It goes on to suggest that POV-pushing, a behavioral issue, might be a reason for a closure to state that consensus is unevaluatable. I have previously closed one RfC in that manner.

My position is that in exceptional circumstances, behavioural issues have to be considered by the closer. I would rather that this not happen, but sometimes it has to be done. Do you disagree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't take any issue with that closure, but I would not generalize such a principle. My argument below is that participants' failures to follow behavioral expectations should not, in and of itself, devalue their arguments, which should be handled on the merits. For instance, I would not devalue a comment because its author bludgeoned the discussion, though I may separately consider sanctions. Most of the matters you mention are either procedural (RFCNEUTRAL) or directly weigh on the strength of argument (COPYVIO in a proposed addition). More generally, some aspects of RfC participation may both affect strength of argument and be conduct issues, because there is substantial overlap between content and conduct, but I would not invalidate an otherwise strong argument on the basis of purely conduct issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-Participants (Genocide RfC)

• Endorse. The evaluation of consensus was correct, such as it was. That said, for an article this important, we ought to have much more participation than just seven editors (I had no awareness of the discussion). As a personal matter, I would have probably !voted to include if it just meant a small intrusion in the text, just to give readers links to examples of how this type of genocide occurred. The closer might want to consider reopening for further feedback. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse The close was just fine. The RfC went off the rails because of problematic behavior by Bogazicili. A fresh RfC would be a better idea, with Bogazicili avoiding bludgeoning and badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, as the only reasonable outcome. The matter is important enough to need more input, there were multiple problems with the RfC, including bludgeoning by the OP, and the outcome that had the most numerical support is not the outcome being advocated for here. Strength of argument matters more, but for a closer to find consensus for an option supported by two out of seven participants, there would have to have been some truly meaningless arguments on the other side. Bogazicili, the fact that you opened a close review here to argue that the closer should have found consensus for a position supported by you and one other editor, and substantively opposed by five others, is an indication to me that you have lost perspective and need to recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse The consensus was clear and evaluated correctly. As to the point - the RfC closure includes comments on editors - I agree with comments made below in another thread - an RfC closer shouldn't really be reading with behavioral conduct in mind, followed up with and re-iterated, an RfC closure should not be engaging with behavioral issues when assessing consensus, which is good advice that AirshipJungleman29 should attempt to follow when closing any future RfCs. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Genocide RfC)

• Well, it does look like bludgeoning was going on and the entire RFC could be seen as a Discussion, not just the section labeled "Discussion". Typically, the first section of an RFC are editors weighing in on the options presented and perhaps offering a short explanation which is not what happened here. You really were a very large part of this discussion, Bogazicili. It looked like you either posted or were refered toby name ~37 times in this RFC. And, before you think to object, when you open a discussion like this, the focus is not necessarily just on the discussion closure but on the RFC, too. And, please, Bogazicili, do not comment on every comment made here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sure but I'll just acknowledge in retrospect that I wasn't as concise as I would like. Bogazicili (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• That discussion was virtually un-closeable. It was high-importance and sensitive, but it had low participation and some of those who did participate were overly invested in the decision. Therefore it shouldn't have had an outcome, and it didn't, so to that extent it does fit in the "no consensus" box. I'd suggest re-running it with a listing on WP:CENT, and encourage Bogazicili not to participate in the re-run. At all.—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Bogazicili's history of bludgeoning goes beyond what has already been mentioned. When this RFC was closed with the result Bogazicili didn't want, Bogazicili want on the closer's talk page not once but twice to complain the consensus was misrepresented. There is also another RFC on Human history that Bogazicili has been "bumping" since August 2024 to prevent it from being archived,[72][73][74][75] because that RFC also has a consensus that is not what Bogazicili wanted. Lastly, in this RFC, Bogazicili’s bludgeoning was perhaps at its worst among some other issues. Later Bogazicili even stalled under my closure request of the same RFC, a month after it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  In Human history topic, Talk:Human_history#Coverage_of_genocides_and_atrocities, there was no RfC. I have reached consensus with the editors responsible for GA promotion. The reason for bumping is I am going to return to it, following User:KhndzorUtogh and another editors opposition to one of the issues. I just didn't have the time.

  The RfC in Turkey reached a rough consensus and was closed by an admin. Bogazicili (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Talk:Human_history#Coverage_of_genocides_and_atrocities is as close to an RFC as it can get and has had a consensus for basically half a year now (not just based on votes but arguments from editors who didn't vote too). But yes, if we're being technical, it's missing the RFC template. The core of my point doesn't change though and it's telling that you choose to deflect from it to a minor technicality.

  The Turkey RFC has been challenged on the closer's talk and they agreed to reopen it [76]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

(moved from wrong section above) AirshipJungleman29's personal comments in the closure seemed questionable to me, especially since it came a few weeks after this interaction at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3: [77] [78] [79]. So I don't know how uninvolved they were.

Personally, I would have preferred RfC closure only sticking to content issues. AirshipJungleman29 could have mentioned bludgeoning etc in my talk page. That seems to be more in line with usual Wikipedia practice. Bogazicili (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Reopening or new RfC

It seems clear to me that the RfC closure was endorsed.

3 people above seem to have suggested reopening or a fresh RfC. Is there any consensus for repeating the RfC about the general expansion of Genocide#History section with more examples, or specifically about these two examples (an RfC about examples in the second paragraph of Genocide#History section), or coverage of these issues article-wide?

If repeated or reopened, I'm planning a more limited role at most, perhaps such as just quoting the sources. I'd appreciate if someone else can take the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Definitely start a new RfC rather than trying to reopen the old one. The old one is so messy that it would scare off potential participants. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is that sometimes starting a new RfC short after an RfC is closed is seen as disruptive. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Bogazicili, you started this review of an RFC closure and now you're proposing a new RFC before this review is even closed? You're kind of jumping the gun here. If you are satisfied with the discussion here, you can request this conversation be closed but do not start a new RFC while a review of a previous RFC closure is still occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: no. I wasn't planning to restart a RfC right away, just like I wasn't planning to respond to every message.

The RfC was closed as "no consensus". That seems to have been endorsed here. Do we need a formal closure for that?

What doesn't seem clear to me is if there is a consensus for a new RfC. That's why I started this section. I will wait for comments and then ask for closure. If there is consensus for another RfC, I'll ask someone else to start the RfC.

Do you want me to ask for closure for the above part before asking if there is consensus for a new RfC? Bogazicili (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is necessary. You're the OP and it seems like you are okay with a closure, other editors are endorsing the RFC closure that is being reviewed, it's up to an admin reviewing disussions to close this one unless there are objections. I expect this to be closed in the near future unless there are objections raised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

User: ZOMG INCOMING

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.

---

@ZOMG INCOMING

It all started with the page Sunny Bunnies. I basically act as the caretaker of this page (see the edit history) and a couple days back this user ZOMG INCOMING made 4 pretty strange distruptive edits where the user claimed the creator of the cartoon show was Zane Steckler. I did revert those edits and left a warning on their talk page. But checking the history of the user page, I found that he said this on his sandbox before blanking it out: "ZOMG SEE ZOMG IS A ZEPPELIN FROM BTD5 BLOONS MONKEY CITY BTD6 BTDB2 SEE ITS IS A ZEPPELIN WITH A SKULL ON TOP OF IT AND WITH GREEN STRIPES ON IT NEAR THE FANS THAT MOVE IT IT IS VERY COOL DO NOT POP IT SEE THAT IT WAS THE STONGST IN BTD5 AND BLOONS MONKEY CITY BUT NOW IN BTD6 AND BTDB2 THE BAD IS NOW THE STONGST AND I DONT LIKE THE BAD AT ALL AND ZOMG MEANS ZEPPELIN OF MIGHTY GARGANTUANESS AND IT IS MADE UP OF BFBS WHICH ARE MADE UP OF MOABS WHICH MADE UP OF BLOONS". This user has been around for a year and the only edits he made are those edits to Sunny Bunnies and his strange sandbox. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE but it's just too early to make any assumptions; but this user is definitely a suspect. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian so I don't exactly know what to do with this user.Yelps (talk) 06:12, 2 March 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.

Creation of page Jack Massey Welsh

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 am writing regarding the "Jack Massey Welsh" page, which was previously created, vandalized, and permanently banned from Wikipedia over five years ago. I understand the concerns that led to its protection, likely stemming from insufficient sourcing and failing WP:GNG, WP:NWEB, etc. Since then, significant time has passed, and Jack Massey Welsh has gained substantial recognition, supported by reliable, independent sources. I have drafted a revised version in my sandbox, adhering to Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines with updated citations from mainstream media and authoritative outlets. I kindly request you review this draft in my sandbox to assess its eligibility for reinstatement, as I believe it now meets the required standards.

Thank you for your consideration - RavenM3 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you use AI to write this?

This diversification reflects Massey’s adaptability, allowing him to explore varied content while maintaining a unified persona across his brand. His success with these channels demonstrates his ability to identify and capitalize on niche markets within YouTube’s vast ecosystem, a strategy that has kept him relevant in an ever-evolving digital landscape.

I will not be moving this to mainspace or lifting the SALT. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not an AI was used, the press release tone is making me awkward. his adeptness at digital content creation suggests a self-taught proficiency in technology and media production, honed through years of experimentation and online engagement - please no. It's supposed to be a neutrally toned biography article. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

No I didn’t use AI - I did however use Grammarly to change some words around to sound a tiny bit more interesting… to say the least - mainly as this is completely out of my area of editing haha.

Honestly though, the content is there with credible citations if things are changed and fixed, I don’t see any reason to why it shouldn’t be accepted with a semi-protected lock to prevent his community from vandalising.

- RavenM3 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The citations are not credible, particularly for a BLP. Getting a Guinness World Record doesn't establish notability and the records themselves are unreliable because anyone can just purchase one. The NY Post and Metro are both considered generally unreliable. Wikitubia is user-generated content. Etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I also just did some googling, and did not see any sources that would indicate that this YouTuber is notable. Having a lot of viewers does not mean someone should have a Wikipedia article about them. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• RavenM3, the standard step for a deleted article is to write a draft and submit it to AFC for review by an AFC reviewer. Protection will not be lifted before it is approved by an AFC reviewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 March 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 unban my socks.

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 may be an unusual request and for that reason may be declined but I am requesting my sock accounts to be unbanned for a few reasons, first is because I was unbanned I don't think there would be much point to leaving my sock accounts banned anyway. The other reason is that my orginal account Michaelshea2004 is still banned according to the user page even though my active account that I am editing from now was unbanned. This is a bit confusing. I know it is policy to leave sock accounts permanently, as in forever, blocked/banned regardless if the user is unbanned or not, but can exceptions be made?. Is there a specific reason as to why the policy that sockpuppet accounts are to be blocked forever is in place even though the user has been unbanned?. I understand it would be to prevent potential abuse but would there be much point if the user is unbanned?. Please forgive me if I sound a bit argumentative or demanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Michaelshea2004 Michaelshea04 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michaelshea04: let me get this straight... you're saying you want to go back to operating those ten sock accounts of yours? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

No. I just want them unbanned. It's a very unusual request I know. Michaelshea04 (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're not going to use them, why would they need to be useable? Am I missing something here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

They don't, but I also didn't mention, there is some very embarrassing messages from me that may not be able to be deleted if they are still blocked. Michaelshea04 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You say "I know it is policy to leave sock accounts permanently, as in forever, blocked/banned regardless if the user is unbanned or not, but can exceptions be made?" but you've given pretty slim grounds for an exception, if it was done here, it'd need to be done all the time. No one forced you to make comments you deem embarrassing and trying to remove them only draws more attention to them(Streisand effect). Personally I would just let it go. If there's something really bad that should be removed, maybe we can deal with that a different way. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I know, but going back to those messages that, yes, I did write, and knowing that and how immature I was is very humiliating to me, and I would be hoping they can be cleared out for my privacy. Michaelshea04 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sure that these messages, whatever they are, have now been read by more people that they ever would if you had kept quiet about them. If you try to get them deleted even more people will read them. Anyway, if you really want to go down that path you can delete them or ask for them to be deleted from this account. There is no need for you to use a sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice, I really do appreciate it but I may not be allowed to delete them if it is blocked, even though they are very much my messages, as I know modifying block notices is prohibitied while the block itself is active. And deleting accounts isn't even technically possible anyway and I can't vanish them but continue to use this account, so that's not an option. Michaelshea04 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. You can tell us which edits you'd like hidden from view. As we know they were from your sock accounts, you can ask us to take action on those accounts. You're right that the account itself cannot be vanished, but that's not what we're proposing, we can conceal the edits themselves.

That said, as Phil notes, by starting this discussion far more people are seeing them than if you had said nothing. Please consider letting this go. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

We ban socks regardless. Secretlondon (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

forever blocked?. Michaelshea04 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally, yes. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)s. I'm afraid you do sound a bit argumentative and demanding. What is the point in unblocking? I suppose that the ban, which applies to the person, has technically been lifted. What do you intend to edit with the sock accounts? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

If I am expected to use them as well as this account, I would generally use them in the same topics as I have been. Michaelshea04 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You would certainly not be expected, in any sense of the word, to operate 11 accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, Michaelshea04, the best you can do right now is to give up your attempt to get the socks unblocked. Otherwise, a WP:BOOMERANG may hit and you might end up getting blocked again. Asking to have your sockpuppet accounts unblocked when you just last month got unbanned for your abusive sockpuppetry is such a monumentally terrible idea. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

In fact, given the history here, I think you would be expected to operate at most one account. You have one unblocked account, there are just shy of 7 million articles here. Go be a constructive contributor. DMacks (talk) 13:20, 2 March 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.

Mattia Vlad Morleo 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 am trying to create an English language page for the Italian composer and pianist Mattia Vlad Morleo. I am his music manager, but I also know how to create neutral wikipedia pages. I have declared a COI, but now I can't add anything to the page. Also ther was a pop up that said the listing was blacklisted. I do not know / understand why or how to remove this blacklisting so I can create the page. Please advise what needs to be done. I am happy for someone else to create the page if preferred.

Thank you PMFlack (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PMFlack,

You are not blocked and there is no protection on Mattia Vlad Morleo but if you really want to pursue this, you should create a draft version at Draft:Mattia Vlad Morleo and, when you are ready, submit it to Articles for Creation for review. I don't see anything that has been "blacklisted" here.

A better place to bring your questions is the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse as this doesn't involve the administrators' community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 1 March 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.

Caution : Paid editing in place

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 job notification at freelancer.com titled "wiki for actor author -- 2" which states that the recruiter is looking for an individual who would make an article about an Ben Cable, which is, of course paid editing to which 55 bids have already been in place. I am not that much active at Wikipedia (more at Commons) so I took the opportunity to notify the administrators about this here so they can take appropriate action when this article is published + on the account which publishes the article. Also, the title suggests that this is the second time the recruiter has done this, so people can investigate and find out what article has been published which is an obvious paid editing. Thank you for reading, Contributor2020^{Talk to me here!} 17:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Paid editing is allowed so long as it's properly declared. In any event, it's unlikely anyone will remember this post if they ever try to publish an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

We have an existing Benjamin T. Cable. The most notable current Ben Cable appears to be this guy with an IMDb page, known for roles such as "Dude at Strip Club" and "Pajama Party Guest". BD2412 T 17:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

He was brilliant in both roles. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I have no idea whether this is the Ben Cable at issue here. It could be some company CEO or the like. This is just the most prominent one that comes up. BD2412 T 19:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The listing says "actor/author Ben Cable" " Ben Cable is well known for both acting and writing" "Ben Cable has had a successful career in short films, music videos, and most recently as an author. For example, his most recent short film, "Everything I Could,” explores a deep conversation and subject between father and daughter." "his challenge to the State of California for gay marriage in 1993" etc... Its not ambiguous, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that we don't know which Ben Cable is being talked about but you're wrong. This is the best I can find for sigcov[80] although there are likely some archived articles from 1993. Overall I don't feel that there is really a path to notability here for Cable, the lawsuit might be notable though (especially if its been mentioned in academic legal coverage). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can't find a draft on this subject unless it is placed on a user sandbox somewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. OP said it's still a listing on freelance.com. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 2 March 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.

Bit of a backlog at....

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Moxy🍁 03:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Improper WP:NAC at FTN

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.

---

About an hour ago, guninvalid closed this RFC over at WP:FTN as "procedural close, bad RFC". However, the vast majority of the people participating in the RFC disagree with this opinion, and in fact all agree with the same position on the underlying RFC, to the point several people were calling for a WP:SNOW close.

This has been brought up at Guninvalid's talk, and their responses have been quite combative, such as If you cornered me and forced me to pick Yes or No, then yes, I would WP:SNOWBALL close it for Yes, because as I said, no one even tried to vote No. But what would that actually mean for Wikipedia? Which articles would have their content changed? This sounds to me like the definition of a WP:SUPERVOTE, and frankly a sign that guninvalid should not be allowed to close discussions. Loki (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

guninvalid should not be allowed to close discussions You might be right about that. This is my fourth time being dragged to AN in three months. Maybe I need a one-month block from closing discussions or something. Maybe I should just finish the assignment I have due in 62 minutes... guninvalid (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Involved

Support own close. I'm going to leave this here for now and log off Wikipedia because I do actually need to get back to my homework. My overall reasoning for the close was that pretty much every thread longer than three messages had regressed into some level of WP:ABF, WP:ADHOMINEM, or some level of gatekeeping for not having read the whole RfC. The Yes votes, on the other hand, had basically no discussion because there was effectively nothing to discuss. Instead, all of the discussion focused on what any particular word of the question means when the question should've been better worded to begin with. guninvalid (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Overturn I already laid out detailed objections on Gunvalid's talkpage (and others said similar things), but I would like emphasise that what seems to have happened is that disruptive editors defending a fringe theory used some well-known tactics to bog down discussion, and unfortunately, they succeeded in bamboozling the closer. OsFish (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to give more detail for convenience sake (see link in my first comment) - the suggested RFC reformulations suggest the closer hadn't understood the discussion, because those reformulations had no basis in any disputes in the discussion. I also think the closer's decision to admonish editors for asking people to look at the reliable sources in the RFCBEFORE was genuinely strange. We should want editors to read the sources. OsFish (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Overturn. Thanks Loki, I was preparing my own close review appeal when I saw this. Simply put, this close was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. By my count this RfC had 18 “Yes” !votes and 4 “procedural opposes”. It was closed as a procedural close by guninvalid largely on the basis that the question was too vague to be answered, the evidence for this being that every major word of the question had been inconclusively litigated. But the only reason for the extensive litigation is that editors were engaging with objections raised by those vocal few “procedural oppose” !voters (and others) in good faith. Meanwhile, YFNS, the OP, had provided extensive top-quality sources to support their case. From the point of view of the vast majority of participants, this really was an open-and-shut case in favor of “yes”. Generalrelative (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Overturn: While I disagree with the opening statement that the quotes were "combative" ("cornered me and forced me to" seems like an attempt to conjure up the words "had me"), they do clearly reflect a lack of understanding of either the discussion or the principle of consensus. There are only two ways I can reason up such a close: either with an extremely literal interpretation of "consensus", or feeling that the opinions of 2 (the 2 other oppose !votes were "per x" IIRC) were substantially stronger than the 18 who understood, half of which presented refutals. I simply have yet to see any way the latter could be true. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Reopen: I briefly considered closing this RfC as the second one that I’ve done since it was advertised as an easy close. The consensus seemed very clear among the respondents but there was a procedural objection that I didn’t feel experienced enough to address. Namely, the result of the RfC was not a specific edit, but rather seems like an attempt to bank a general consensus position in advance against the opinion that the consensus considers a fringe opinion (a position I’m inclined to agree with). I don’t have enough experience to know if that is a norm within RfC’s. I think the closer was well intentioned, but I’d encourage them to listen to the feedback here and reopen the RfC so someone more experienced can close. Dw31415 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  @OsFish provided me a link to an RfC from 4 years ago. I’m including here because I think it’s a valuable precedent in considering how this RfC should be treated. Race and Intelligence Fringe Theory RfC Dw31415 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like the RfC was opened after one procedural opposer argued in an RfC about a specific article that they needed an RfC on the theory itself before discussing a specific source and thus the specific article. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:38, 3 March 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.

Create user page: User:135.180.130.195

I can't create it myself as I am an IP user so an administrator needs to create the user page. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) though any autoconfirmed user can create the page, IPs normally don't get user pages, because they can be shared by multiple people, and that IPs change. I strongly suggest you create an account for the numerous WP:BENEFITS. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done But I don't think an administrator was required. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz I was reading the policy (venerated by the community) on creating pages and IP users role on wikipedia and it directed me here to create a page that wasn't an article. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

But thank you very much for creating the page. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Appealing my I-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.

---

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 an voluntary 1 way IBAN with Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per ANI here and AN here. Recently on Doctor Who series 15 there was a flurry of activity and Alex added an unneccesary note to the table. As it was in a flurry of edits, I [undid it] without seeing the username of the editor. Alex then [reverted it] citing my iban, so I [asked] at the talk page whether the note was necessary, as similar articles do not have it. Alex [reported] this action of mine, so I [clarified] my intentions on the next edit to the talk page. I [moved] the location of the note yesterday, given that moving isn't reverting and the text of it is still on the article, though Alex[disagreed]. This all was considered as me having a discussion with him by an admin and as a definite IBan violation. As this seems too restrictive to me, that I can't ask questions regarding what even Alex must know is an incorrect edit (seeing that it was not added to this article before, though by the same logic it should, nor on Doctor Who 2023 specials or any WP:TV article in a similar situation), I have come to appeal the IBAN, as Alex is usually the one who makes the drafts for new Doctor Who episodes first, and I feel like any edit on these pages could be brought up as a violation, regardless of how correct it might be.

Seeing that the situation may once again become like that before the Iban, I also wanted to ask if in the case I take the editor to ANI again, would it be considered correct to inform WP:DRWHO, or would that be considered canvassing. DWF91 (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR, I strongly suggest you drop this since the more likely result is some sort of expanded sanction rather than a removal of the iban.

For more detail, when you have an iban, it's sort of your responsibility to ensure you're not reverting the editor you had an iban with especially if it's a very recent edit so should be obvious. But even if we excuse the first edit as an honest mistake, this doesn't explain your continued violations after it was pointed out to you. You agreed to an iban less than a month ago and you should have learnt then what it entailed or at least in the followup AN where it was explained to you. But even if we also excuse you for still not understanding what the iban means for your editing, once you were called out rather than making all those other obvious iban violations, you should have been seeking further guidance on what your iban means since you were confused.

Finally from my brief look at the original discussion it seems like a big part of the problem was that you were always so convinced that you're right and Alex 21 was completely wrong, that you started to lash out. While perhaps you didn't really lash out here earlier, your statement here that "Alex must know is an incorrect edit" is highly problematic.

You're effectively accusing Alex 21 of vandalism. And I see zero reason why you should think that. I haven't even looked at the precise edit but it seems obvious from your description it's a fairly run of the mill content dispute. While similar articles often follow similar patterns, there can be various reasons why they may diverge in particular ways. Alex 21 might feel that applies here or maybe they just disagree with the normal pattern. Or perhaps they're just genuinely confused about something like what's normally done, why it was and wasn't done in some way etc.

The question over what to do in this particular case would normally be resolved by discussion, whether with the two of you and anyone else who joined or perhaps seeking some sort of WP:Dispute resolution; without edit warring and without editors lashing out, and with each editor assuming the other one is trying to better Wikipedia but they just disagree on what is the best. In this case, you cannot be part of that discussion, so you'll have to leave it to others. But your statement makes me think that it's not a bad thing you're excluded since you're assuming for no apparent reason that the editor is trying to harm Wikipedia which means you're contributions to the discussion are likely to end up unproductive. Generally every editor should be able to accept they're wrong and should be very careful against convincing themselves too much that they're surely right or the other editor is surely wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also just for clarity a lot of the time no one is clearly wrong or right. Editors might reasonably disagree on how to handle something and might never agree. The main thing is they need to be willing to discuss and accept when consensus is against them. And learn if consensus is generally against them and adapt their editing so it's generally in line with consensus even when they disagree with said consensus. Them continuing to disagree with consensus isn't harmful or wrong, provided it doesn't make them edit in harmful ways. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

We aren't disagreeing, he is wrong- I can create another ANI discussion to prove that if necessary. DWF91 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want to read how the situation arose, don't reply with generic stuff like "most of the time, no one is wrong", and "you have to believe that you can be wrong too": I came here to see a conflict solved, not to hear people paraphrase "dispute resolution" and AGF and editor conduct policies and etc etc. DWF91 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As the editor DWF91 voluntarily requested an IBAN against, I would request to see it maintained. The timeline leading to this discussion occurs:

• This edit of mine, reverted by DWF91 during their IBAN here, was not an "accidental" revert, it was a manual revert of the exact same content, just note the note they are claiming, but the reference as well, violating WP:IBAN #5. This can be seen here, in that the byte size difference between the ideas is identical.
• They then started a discussion here, asking another editor to revert it, and directed referred to the IBAN here.
• A further direct modification of my edit occurred here, this time being directly aware of the content.
• When I brought this to the enforcing admin here, the editor here stated the other editor's words aren't gospel, thus requesting them to disregard my comments despite having provided the above diffs to the admin here.

Looking at the above request, As this seems too restrictive to me, that I can't ask questions regarding what even Alex must know is an incorrect edit, this indicate that they are very much observing my edits, and requesting it be removed so that they can continue to directly revert my edits.

The line Seeing that the situation may once again become like that before the Iban, I also wanted to ask if in the case I take the editor to ANI again, again, this shows that they are requesting it be lifted solely to escalate the situation once more. This is why I request it be maintained, to prevent dragging this apparent situation through the mud even further. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• I said I didn't see the username, not that I pressed "undo"
• I brought attention to the content of the page, which I saw you had an issue with (I look into the edits of all WP:DRWHO contributors now and then, to see if I had missed any AfD or FfD or talk page discussions etc, so I saw that), so I clarified it, for an admin to see
• Iban doesn't say I can't modify an article just bcs you edited that part of it.
• The "gospel" part is to you calling the moving of the note as "reverting"
• Have you not read any other part of the paragraph, or have you forgotten what context is? Such editing coflicts would arise any time a season airs, and this is a more restrictive reading of the iban then I inferred it to be
• I am not trying to escalate the situation, I am asking in the case "if" the situation becomes like that again. DWF91 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  I said I didn't see the username, not that I pressed "undo" - You directly reverted the exact edit, note and further content, via undo or any other means. See IBAN #5.

  Such editing coflicts would arise any time a season airs, and this is a more restrictive reading of the iban then I inferred it to be - Then you should have read IBAN more clearly before requesting one. There is no conflict, there is directly reverting an edit.

  We aren't disagreeing, he is wrong - This is just confrontational, that continues to be the issue behind this IBAN.

  seeing that it was not added to this article before, though by the same logic it should, nor on Doctor Who 2023 specials or any WP:TV article in a similar situation - The fact that a note like this might not exist on another article is not a reason to never include the edit. Doctor Who is also the only WP:TV article to use story number rather than overall episode number, but I don't see that being an issue. However, that actually remains wrong. As of this moment, 111 articles use a note in the airdate column, including notes to airtimes in different timezones, such as the article Chernobyl (miniseries) (I could find more, but it not being in "any WP:TV article" is simply incorrect.

  Furthermore...

  The editor tried to cheat the system at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 7, where I responded here concerning a direct policy, and the editor above replied here, very clearly replying to my comment, but keeping the indentation away from appearing to reply to me. This request to remove the IBAN simply stems from a desire to be allowed to be confrontational with me, which is why it was implemented in the first place. Another editor has already suggested they drop the issue, but instead they continue to argue and dismiss their response as "generic". -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:48, 3 March 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.

• that is also in separate dates, but whatever, keep manipulating and lying and acting obtuse until someone finally actually have had enough. DWF91 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the closing statement of Nil's advice being good, but I will try to do as has been said in the statement. DWF91 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't add posts inside the closed thread. I have moved your post out of that portion of the thread. Since you insist on keeping this thread going, here's my take:

• It's a bad idea to keep this going when the closing admin has already told you that it's being closed because it is not going to go anywhere good for you and that the closing admin thinks the initial response you got of I strongly suggest you drop this since the more likely result is some sort of expanded sanction rather than a removal of the iban. is good advice.
• It's a really bad idea to continue this by violating your one-way Iban by making the personal attacks manipulating and lying and acting obtuse on the subject of your Iban.

Since DoctorWhoFan91 has refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and has doubled down by egregiously violating their Iban with personal attacks I suggest that a block is in order. Meters (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I was just replying to what he said just before the thread closed, I wasn't trying to keep it going; my reply was factual.

On what basis are you suggesting a block, is this "general editor's suggestion noticeboard"? DWF91 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You were not just replying to what he said. The thread had ben closed, and you have a one-way Iban with them so you should not be replying to them at all, let alone by adding a blatant personal attack.

More than one person has told you to drop this. You were explicitly told that this was being closed before you could get into more trouble. What does it take? WP:DROPTHESTICK. Do yourself a favour and do not reply again. Meters (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we're at a point where that would be beneficial. My understanding is DWF91 intends to adhere to the iban, and a block at this point wouldn't be helping anybody. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, I'm having a hard time getting past keep manipulating and lying and acting obtuse. And yow, a 1-way is generally reserved for pretty egregious issues. If a block wouldn't be helpful, does this need to be a 2-way? Valereee (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee: Myself and another admin have been discussing this with DWF off wiki (on the NPP discord for full disclosure). I am not happy with the comment you quoted either, but I'm mentally attributing it to a moment of lashing out and frustration at the situation, which I am hopeful is not repeated and obviously do not endorse. Based on the discussion, and based on DWF saying they'd do as has been said in the statement (yes, I know, they said try, but I personally expect they'll do more than try), I don't believe a block, at this time, would prevent further issues. If there is continuation, then yes, it may be beneficial, but at this very moment, I do not think it would be beneficial. As for it being 2-way, I think it could be helpful, but I've not examined the situation close enough to determine whether that's justified for the other person involved. My involvement has been strictly trying to coach and explain that the 1-way interaction ban sucks, but it must be adhered to, regardless of personal feelings towards the situation, until such a time that appropriate maturity and good behaviour has been demonstrated. I do believe DWF deserves that chance and, if they slip up and behave egregiously again, then a preventative short term block could and probably should be considered. I don't typically stick my neck out like this for other folks, but I think they're coming off worse in these discussions and showing a side of themselves that I hadn't seen before, and I want to give someone I perceive as a generally constructive editor a chance. Everything that I've seen, prior to these related discussions, has been helpful and constructive. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Aight. I wish the discussions were here rather than on discord, but I'll reluctantly AGF on the reasons for that, though honestly I can't imagine what they could be and don't understand why discussions of editor behavior would need to be offwiki. @DoctorWhoFan91, another post like keep manipulating and lying and acting obtuse and I'll indef. I do understand that a 1-way is nearly intolerable, but walk away from the keyboard before you hit send on another post like that. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee: I never intended to get involved initially, but they asked a question there which evolved into a larger discussion. In my experience, a lot of people ask questions on the main community Discord and the NPP server based on the response times and the familiarity with those who they're asking. They were not necessary to be off wiki, but that's simply what happened. I'll also note they took place in channels that are considered public which anybody could access. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. I just hate it lol. Valereee (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, @Valereee, I think for everyone's sake it's better that this discussion happened off-wiki. It was mostly along the lines of Friends don't let friends get sanctioned; I would like to think that the conversation fulfilled the purpose a block would, namely that it's preventative and not punitive, so a block is not necessary unless things flare up again. That is, I don't think you need to AGF on the reasons - it's simply a question of whether that action (the conversation) succeeded or if it needs to escalate to admin actions. You're welcome to join the NPP Discord and get your own sense of it, but that's mine.

To put it down for the on-wiki record, the editors I would now consider "small-i involved" in this on a personal level are, along with me and josh, Significa liberdade, qcne, and Toadspike. Let the record state: "we tried, man, we tried." -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, but "Friends don't let friends get sanctioned" to me sounds like "we will help you not get sanctioned". Should having friends on discord who can help make sure you don't get sanctioned be a legitimate way to avoid sanctions when those who don't have such friends don't have that recourse? I just am really uncomfortable with anyone gaining advantage because they've got friends on discord. I realize this is offtopic here on AN. Valereee (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, none of us are exactly "friends", just in the same server. It's like having friends on wikipedia too, is it an advantage that some editors has interacted with many editors while editing on wikipedia. The only thing that was different is that a semi-official platform was used for faster communication. Yeah, it is probably offtopic for AN. DWF91 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Onwiki, it's transparent. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I did try here first, I only asked there after I saw that the reply was a paragraph summarising iban and AGF and dispute resolution. 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC) DWF91 (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, I hate to ask, but did you read the linked essay? I don't at all think it's "friends who help make sure you don't get sanctioned" - that's what happens when someone is reported at ANI and then their friends show up to pull a "what they did is fine, what's your problem" and "omg boomerang" and so forth, trying to sway the discussion away from their buddy. In case that were to happen - and I really, really doubt that it would - now you've got all our names, and could sanction accordingly. Instead, what everyone was doing was trying to prevent further disruption from occurring, which is precisely the stated purpose of blocks. Whether we succeeded is another matter.

I don't share josh's optimism, as I think my previous comment made pretty clear. I also hope it was clear that if you or any other uninvolved admin thought any particular admin action was required, you're free to do as you see fit. I personally don't think it would be appropriate for me, josh, or Significa liberdade to do so at this point, even if we agreed it ought to be done. I do think any admin considering a block based solely on this morning's comments here ought to read the Discord conversation first, in the same way that I would expect an admin to read relevant talk pages first. -- asilvering (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I do think any admin considering a block based solely on this morning's comments here ought to read the Discord conversation first Those of us not in the Discord conversation, and who have no interest in Discording, are shut out, which is IMHO not good for the admin corps or for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The following provides a quick summary of how I perceived the conversation on Discord. DWF91 asked if any administrators were available to discus an issue. This was during a time when many administrators are inactive. A couple of us, who asilvering mentioned, responded. DWF91 stated that they accidentally got involved with the editor involved in their IBAN, and those named told DWF91 to back off and not do anything further. At that point, it would have seemed egregious to sanction someone for a mistaken interaction. DWF91 then shared what they shared here at ANI, and editors continued telling them to back off or they will get themselves blocked. There was no indication of support DWF91's bad behaviour but rather, trying to encourage a "friend" to do the right thing (as the essay asilvering linked earlier states). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Might I split the difference here, as someone who is active on Discord but critical of some aspects of how Wikipedia-related Discord interacts with the rest of Wikipedia, and say that Discord is a great place to get informal, less self-censored advice from admins and other experienced users, but that the flipside of that informal nature is that Discord conversations should not be cited on-wiki as reason to do or not do something? That would be true even if these comments were public and directly quotable on-wiki, but is made even worse by the community's absurd decision to consider Discord comments private even when made on public servers by accounts that are publicly authenticated to their Wikimedia accounts. So as applies to this case, I think it's great that this conversation occurred, but don't think it was appropriate for @Hey man im josh and @Asilvering to treat it as relevant to whether anyone should block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

This is pretty overblown and is actively discouraging people from helping others. Saying I talked with someone and I think they'll adhere to the iban and that a block would be punitive and not helpful really shouldn't be anything close to the big deal it's being made out to be. I'll continue to be transparent in my efforts towards editor retention and helping others. I'm not protecting anybody, I just offered my 2 cents. Block or don't block, I won't stand in the way and I do not endorse the behaviour, but be realistic. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Unlike most of the other admins who use the community Discord, I am just wiki-old enough to be a veteran of the tail end of the IRC wars. When part of the community starts treating comments made in their preferred off-wiki venue as interchangeable with those made on-wiki, that creates tension. When they simultaneously forbid anyone from quoting those comments, things get even worse. The solution is a word you used: transparency. If you have a productive off-wiki conversation that you want to be "admissible" on-wiki, create a papertrail. Go to a user's talkpage and say "Hey, we just had a good conversation on Discord about this thing. To sum up my points: ABC..." and then let them reply with a summary of what they said. That makes everything public, and lets everyone put things in the right tone for on-wiki discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

A summary on-wiki wouldn't stop people from saying something is been hid on discord. Also, has there actually been any issues with discord the past year or two for discord, where we refrain from doing anything that will have direct effects on on-wiki actions as a rule, to be called a venue where people might think there words are comparable on-wiki. Isn't this just pre-emptively saying that newer editors will make the same mistakes as the older ones? DWF91 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to keep said discussion on-wiki, but sometimes the response timing and small number of editors at any given time can be detrimental to questions, so I had to ask on discord- I only did so after the thread was closed to avoid unintentional canvassing, only asking clarifications on iban guidelines before, bcs I don't know who to ask, as I put the iban on myself. Apologies for those words, I'll refrain from coming to WP:AN or similiar noticeboards from now on, as they make me lose my self-control sometimes, I don't do that in other avenues in general. DWF91 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone refraining from asking for help, DWF. But, yeah, noticeboards should be a last resort, and almost nothing here is actually urgent. Post to the talk of someone experienced whom you trust, and try to be patient about response time. HMIJ seems like they might be a good person for you. Valereee (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a one-way, voluntary editing restriction/IBan suggested and adopted by DoctorWhoFan91. I reviewed the original noticeboard discussion and don't see any reason for this to become a 2way IBan as while Alex 21 in past interactions was responding to DoctorWhoFan91, I don't remember any personal attacks or provocation from his account. But I was not optimistic about this IBan as continuing without violations because these two editors work on the same subject area of the project. It will be hard for them to avoid each other unless DoctorWhoFan91 ceases editing some Doctor Who-related articles. And, to be frank, I don't think DoctorWhoFan91 has a great deal of self-control when they have a lack of respect for an editor. They seem to have a great deal of support from editors and admins I respect so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I don't think Alex 21 should be restricted because DoctorWhoFan91 can't stop dismissing his contributions.

I also think that DoctorWhoFan91 should have the opportunity to appeal this IBan but I understand that this attempt was cut short as it was veering off-track. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No personal attacks on me is patently false, but I do not have the energy to summarise the ANI thread again and again, so dismiss this or accept this with the diffs/ discussions linked there as you wish. (That's the general you, not the specific you). 05:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC) DWF91 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur with [nil Hey man im josh]]. Blocking DWF91 would shortsightedly deprive the project of an editor with a positive history of improvement and collaboration beyond this issue. Removing the IBAN, though, likely causes another ANI thread down the line—future positive collaborations between the two does not seem likely at this point. DWF91 should work within the restrictions created by it across the topic area both editors share, exercising caution when selecting battles to pick (or hills to die on, as sentiment has been across the 2 historic threads). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion about Discord, I think editors should be allowed to chat and ask for advice off wiki. The alternative is that the NPP Discord mods should've shut down the discussion and then suggested that all of the editors trying to talk DWF out of doing something silly should've gone to their talk page, which given the level of toxicity that sometimes surrounds user conduct discussions on wiki, might've lead to a bunch of random people (passive) aggressively piling on. I think we should think about why editors feel more comfortable asking questions like this on Discord and consider that maybe the problem is with how the community deals with conduct issues, rather than with people chatting off-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is that Discord exists for off-wiki discussions, it's that if agreements are made or changes are promised, there is no record of these statements that is visible to the majority of other editors in order to hold an editor accountable. Discord is fine for venting, as long as there are no personal attacks, but in terms of pledging to change one's behavior, comments made there are ephemeral and non-binding, at least to me. You can't include a diff to a Discord discussion comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I did say I will try to adhere to the iban here first- there is nothing I "promised" there I didn't promise here first. DWF91 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I did come to AN first to ask for admin views- I only asked off-wiki when all I got was a reply summarising AGF and ibans and dispute resolution, and another where all my words are being cut off to twist them into something they were not.

Like I would have done this on-wiki even with the slower speed here, if the avenue I thought would be helpful has any editor allowed to say anything.DWF91 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As the editor that DoctorWhoFan91 personally requested themselves an IBAN against, I would have very much appreciated transparency in this apparent discussion that unfolded. What happened? Where do I find this discussion? What guarantee is there that I won't be presented with continued disregard, such as here, or here, or here? I can respect DoctorWhoFan91's decision that they don't respect myself or my contributions, that's fine and their choice, and I have never attacked them for that choice. But they requested to not interact with me, and then continued to contribute to a closed discussion – how is this decision and discussion any different to the previous two at ANI and AN? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Pls make it stop, all I asked was that I not be pinged 20 times in edit summaries for not making changes to talkspace ASAP(bcs the changes were about MoS which is only about articlespace), and that a knowingly reliable ref not be added to an FL after it was agreed on by the more active editors in WP:DRWHO, including him. I am not replying again here, or on ANI or AN or on any noticeboard ever again, pls leave me alone. DWF91 (talk) 06:17, 4 March 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 Abusing Power For Nepotism

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.

---

@bbb23 threatened to ban me over his nepotistic support of David Gerard. This equates to an admin gang bang where the 1st was just an editor but his own Wikipedia shows a strong bias against the subject matter (or part of it) and the 2nd decided to join in without any justification and threaten a ban. Muckraker2018 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to notify Bbb23 of tbis discussion, if you really want to proceed. You're more likely to get a WP:BOOMERANG block(not a ban, which is different) than something happening to Bbb23. I suggest you withdraw this. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked for personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, not just the insults here, but the same and worse on their talk page. Unless there is a come to Jesus moment very soon, this will be increased to indef with no talk page access. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 3 March 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 – March 2025

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

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFP/R

The above page has been backed up for a while now, with several editors waiting for a week or more to have their requests reviewed. E6400 (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-mistake-email-steward

I've noticed a bunch of pages link to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-mistake-email-steward, but that page doesn't exist. I noticed this as my IP range is globally blocked. TagUser (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Notifying User:Pppery, who appears to be the user who introduced this problem. Animal lover |666| 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No, actually T386479 introduced it, not me. Fixed anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, again, thanks to your technical expertise, * Pppery *. I've lost count of how many times I've personally turned to you for help with an issue like this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

AN/I Closure issue

Not sure where to put this, but the closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment and attempted outing by User:CoalsCollective has some messed-up formatting, and I'm not exactly sure how to fix it. JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 21:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting now! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@MolecularPilot Thanks! JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 21:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

An admin just left my previous closure information visible so that editors could see that the discussion had been closed and reopened. But thanks for any fixing that needed to be done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was intentionally reopened by Sarek of Vulcan, but in a somewhat confusing way that made it look broken instead. I'm hoping I've helped clarify a little. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Creating a Geonotice

I am trying to create a Geonotice for an American Academy of Religion Editathon at Arizona State for March 15 from 2:45 to 3:45.

I need permission to post? How do I set up URL and is there a template?

Thanks RosPost 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you need to put in a request at WP:Geonotice, for which you need the coordinates for which you want this message to display. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, it's an {{FPER}} on Wikipedia talk:Geonotice/list.json. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? WP:Geonotice says 'To propose a geonotice, simply create a new third level section (using ===) under the "Requests" section, using the boilerplate text below, and follow the instructions in this section', and says nothing about an {{FPER}}, nor can I see any evidence of that page being fully protected. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Geonotice/list.json is fully protected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting reconsideration/removal of indefinite topic ban (Darker Dreams 2)

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.

---

Per this ANI discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from "witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly construed." I am requesting the standard offer. I recognize that I was aggressive in my editing. If this ban is removed I intend to resume the editing I did for more than 15 years; mostly focusing on navigation improvements through connections, copyediting, and topics with minimal interest. While I recognize there is a desire for me to show “more” and “more substantive” edits, I have rarely been a prolific editor of Wikipedia, editing at my own pace and mostly focused my efforts on wikignome-style activities which are “trivial edits.” Further, in my effort to respect this ban, I have avoided any interaction with fantasy fiction (which often include magic) and the humanities (which are highly influenced by religion) – this represents a broad bar to participation across Wikipedia. My intent remains to edit in ways that conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to add a more permanent link, the topic ban from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Darker Dreams and Witchcraft was imposed in October 2023. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Still not enough activity for the ban to be overturned. I recommend to continue expanding coverage of edits outside the affected topic area. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

TBF, Dream's actions are still aggressive that everyone contributing to the topic area might find very uncomfortable. Just spend some time outside the topic area for now, would be better if you give another project a try. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose To me, Darker Dreams's request does not inspire confidence that they see anything wrong with their editing behavior previously other than their acknowledgement that they were "aggressive", and there's no indication that they recognize what was problematic about it or how they intend to edit differently. When they say My intent remains to edit in ways that conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, that isn't reassuring, because they insisted in the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban that their edits were in accordance with policy...so, they're just promising more of what happened before, I guess? Without a commitment to "what I'll do differently" and "how I'll change my editing approach", I can't support removal of the topic ban. Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you indicate what edit since my ban you believe "remains aggressive"? If there is something specific I can address I would like to do so. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Note that Darker Dreams filed a nearly identical appeal a few months ago but couldn't be bothered to link it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive364#Requesting_reconsideration/removal_of_indefinite_topic_ban_(Darker_Dreams) (originally had the exact same nearly-unsearchable header as this, too). Since Darker Dreams apparently didn't bother to read the feedback there or act on it, the short version: show competent editing and collaboration in some other domain or on some other wiki first, then maybe. But it's simply not true the problem was merely "aggression." The problem was also competence - Darker Dreams's edits were not actually good at the time. People change, but let's see evidence of that first. SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that link, @SnowFire. I was surprised to see my comment in that appeal because I don't remember it at all. I'm also surprised by the very similar wording in the appeals; if the approach failed the first time, why repeat it? Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also, not to pile on, but just to be more specific: Darker Dreams talks about being a Wikignome above, but let me stress that their gnomish edits were also (often?) bad and unhelpful. Stuff like inventing bizarre terms as redirects like magico-religious and then adding the new made-up term everywhere. SnowFire (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  I did not intend to conceal the previous appeal. I have found limited information on formatting an appeal. I recognize that was an oversight. That is also why the appeal contents are generally similar, while I attempted to expand and specify as appropriate, the format I arrived at is mostly the same.

  I do not believe I added the term magico-religious to any article. I turned existing references into (red) links because I thought it was a term that needed definition. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Last September, in response to an almost identical appeal, I wrote Oppose at this time, for two reasons. First, "I recognize that I was aggressive in my editing" is a far too brief and incomplete acknowledgement of their inappropriate POV pushing that resulted in the topic ban. Second, the editor made roughly 1300 edits in the five months leading up to their topic ban. They have made only 39 edits in the ten plus months since their topic ban was imposed. I would expect to see at least six months of active, productive, problem free editing in other topic areas before supporting a lifting of the topic ban. So, did they take my advice and the advice of others to edit productively in other topic areas? No. With the exception of two inconsequential edits last December, they have not edited at all since that declined appeal. There was decisive opposition to the last appeal, and nothing has changed, except that the editor has become less active. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose: avoiding all editing of humanities-related articles is a much more stringent restriction than the actual letter of your topic ban; there are plenty of humanities-related pages which you could safely edit if you want to.
  As it is, I don't really understand why you are appealing now: since your previous appeal, where the closing statement read in part Suggest Darker Dreams build up more significant edits to show productive editing before requesting removal again, your total editing was two small edits in December. It's all very well saying in your appeal that you have always been a wikignome – but if your primary editing interest is purely gnomish you can demonstrate that in any other topic area and I'm not clear why you need to be able to edit witchcraft/paganism/supernatural-related articles. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • On further thought, having read back over the original ANI discussion, I have to oppose. Darker Dreams' participation on Witchcraft and related pages, which precipitated that discussion, were absolutely not "wikignome-style activities"; if they want to do more wikignoming as they say in this appeal they should absolutely start off by doing it in an area where they were not editing disruptively due to a long-running content dispute. Witchcraft is by far their most edited article (147 of their 1919 mainspace edits and 105 of their 372 talkspace edits): this is not the profile of a gnomish editor and suggesting that the reason for their minimal editing over the last two years is because they are primarily a gnomish editor feels disingenuous to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  If the limitation was only "witchcraft, paganism, and magic" I would agree that it does not represent a significant limitation. It is the "religion" aspect that I feel excludes participation in humanities articles broadly. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC) edited comment for clarity and typo. Also, please note that the referenced editing profile represents ~6 months preceded by more than 15 years. Yes; I engaged heavily with this article during this period, but I believe it is fair to say that doesn't represent my level or style of engagement with Wikipedia over time. Darker Dreams (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  It is the "religion" aspect that I feel excludes participation in humanities articles broadly There are certainly many humanities articles which touch on religion to a greater or lesser extent, and which you should avoid editing – but there are many others which do not. There are plenty of articles on history which are not religious – for instance if you were interested in e.g. Category:Tudor rebellions you should obviously avoid Pilgrimage of Grace and Prayer Book Rebellion but I should think that you would be okay to edit Kett's Rebellion and Essex's Rebellion. If you were interested in ancient Greece, you could edit many of the articles about the military history and political organisation of Greek states, some about the social history, many about individual historical figures... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I've modified the section header to be more searchable. Also given that Darker Dreams made the previous appeal then ghosted the discussion, I suspect that if DD doesn't join in shortly, this should be closed to prevent a waste of time. SnowFire (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any change from the previous appeal. Secretlondon (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - The editor's presence in this topic area has been highly disruptive and involved insistent and persistent POV-pushing that repeatedly displayed WP:IDHT behavior, edit warring, personal attacks and blanking of reliable sources they disagreed with. It is interesting to note that this current appeal has been opened at exactly same moment when there is a dispute/discussion occurring on the Witchcraft article talk page. Additionally, they filed a nearly identical recent appeal for removal of the ban just a short time ago. This indicates that the WP:IDHT behavior and the willingness or ability to take feedback into account toward behavioral change has not occurred. I do not think it is wise to lift the topic ban, and believe that doing so would continue to waste community time. Netherzone (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as prior closer where I recommended they build up a history before again requesting limiting of restrictions. There are two edits since then. This does not show an understanding of the community concerns, nor do their responses here. Star Mississippi 21:22, 6 March 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.

CheckUser appointment, March 2025

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

• 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN"... should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

User:Toa Nidhiki05

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from AP/2

Administrator imposing the sanction

User:Rosguill

Notification of that administrator

[81]

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

I had debated making an immediate appeal, as I felt the decision was not in line with the facts of the case. The recent closure of the relevant RfC, where my arguments were directly cited by the closing admin, have given me reason to appeal.

The essential gist behind this topic ban, as I understand it, is that I refused to engage with sources and was pushing a point of view in a request for comment at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States). I argued that previous discussions on the page resulted in a local consensus for what the infobox should say about political positions, and that there is no academic consensus on whether the Republican Party is far-right, or at least enough to include it as a faction in the infobox. Like a dozen other editors, I opposed including it; the closing admin found no consensus for or against conclusion, and has cited my arguments in the closure. I did not edit war in regards to this subject, and there was no disruptive editing to the page in question; only discussion on the talk page.

As the closing admin for the RfC repeatedly has noted in the closure review for the RfC, I did use and engage with sources. Moreover, the biggest example used by administrators to justify the topic ban - a refusal to engage with sources provided by Simonm223 - is not accurate. You can see the context in this diff and this diff; in neither one am I even near the conversation, and yet Simonmn223 somehow holds me responsible for not responding. Simonm never linked me to where sources were provided; when they gave sources to me in a separate discussion, not only did I like the sources, I suggested they be used in the article. Essentially: I do not think it is fair to hold me responsible for not responding to a single editor's sources, in an RfC involving over two dozen editors - especially when said editor never presented the sources to me at any point, nor did they tag me in them, or even direct me to their location.

In the original AN/I thread, numerous uninvolved editors felt that my conduct on the page contained "no wrongdoing" or expressed outright confusion over what the behavior issue supposedly was. Other editors identified it as a content dispute. Even some of the administrators who ultimately supported a topic ban felt my behavior was "an opinion on a content dispute, not on editor behavior" or that they "[didn't] see much separating Toa's behavior from the crowd".

I contend that I didn't engage in wrongdoing here, and certainly not worthy of a topic ban. I was topic banned from AP/2 years ago; I fully take responsibility for my behavior then. However, I cannot take responsibility for things I have not done, and if my arguments at the RfC were compelling enough to be cited by the RfC closer, I don't think they can be called plainly disruptive. Toa Nidhiki05 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to bludgeon, but I want to ask a question, Barkeep49. Can you please point to an actual example of me, on the page, being presented with academic sources, and immediately switching gears? In the AE thread, you based your comment on this about Simonmn's claim about presenting me sources. But, they never actually did this, as I showed above - they posted a handful of sources in a 25-person RfC in response to other people, and never pinged me, never tagged me, and never directed me to said sources.

I went back and looked at all my comments actively on the page - I looked at the RfC, and I can't find an example of me actively denying a source when presented it. My general point was I didn't think the academic consensus backed the claim, not that no sources existed - I think? Can you please show diffs of this happening? This would provide some clarity to me. Toa Nidhiki05

I might be blind but, I've scanned this multiple times and at least at the point in the thread you linked to, I don't see any sources provided by Simonm, let alone to me? At least at where you linked to (I'm assuming the discussion below, which is about the Tea Party), I don't see any sources presented by Simonmn. There are a few by Theofunny, about the Tea Party, but I'm hardly the only person to not respond in that specific comment chain - frankly, nothing said contradicted what I said (a chunk of the Tea Party became Trumpist).

I'm not demanding diffs for any malicious reason, and you're clearly not persuadable, so I'm not going to try to. I just don't believe that's an accurate reflection of what happened. I'm not going to acknowledge something I don't believe happened, let alone apologize for it, if that makes sense. Again, I don't want to bludgeon, and you probably think this is some sort of civil attempt at something malicious, so this is the last I'll talk about it, but it's genuinely frustrating. Toa Nidhiki05 03:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what the context is. I did respond in an area, close to sources Simonmn provided. Except, it's not in that discussion - it's in a separate comment chain, nearly a day after, on an entirely unrelated subject. This was also the first time I commented in that thread since January 13 (eight days prior). So no, I wasn't actively involved in Simonm's discussion beforehand, so I'm not sure why a direct rebuttal of sources given to someone else would be expected?

Anyway, that's the last I'll say there. It's clear that there won't be any budging from either of us on this. But I felt I needed to make this clarification so you knew I had actually seen it eventually. Toa Nidhiki05 04:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Chess, I don't think you are accurately describing the situation.

• My argument was that previous discussions ([82] [83] [84]) yielded a local consensus for center-right to right-wing, backed by reliable sources, and that Warrenmck's proposal (adding "far-right" and "anti-intellectualism" to the infobox) and sources weren't convincing, especially when said changes had been rejected in numerous other discussions. Moreover, I agreed with suggestions for a moratorium on changes, as the topic of changing the political position comes up almost daily on the talk page (I also supported instituting a moratorium on changes following the closure of the RfCs in question, regardless of the outcome).
• I reject Rosguill's claims that I misled. In fact, Rosguill's analysis is lacking, or in some cases, in error; for example, they claimed that I gave a diff as evidence of Warrenmck doing something, but the diff was not of Warrenmck. However, the diff in question wasn't of Warrenmck doing anything - if was of another user acknowledging a local consensus existed, something Warrenmck denied. Essentially: Rosguill misread what I said, and when I pointed this out, they essentially shrugged it off as the "vague recollection of the prior discussion" without acknowledging they misread to begin with.
• Much of the rest of Rosguill's case is arguing previous discussions didn't show a local consensus - but this is their opinion, and other editors (like BootsED) have disagreed on the matter. Regardless, it had been established on the article for over half a year, meaning it pretty unquestionably was a status quo. Rosguill also argued I didn't provide sources, when I did, from the previous discussions; Chetsford actually cited this in their closure ("For my edification for the future, can you describe why the three threads from 2024 that Toa Nidhiki05 incorporated by reference into the discussion with counter-sources and his argument as to the sufficiency of the sources provided, don't constitute a rebuttal?").
• When Simonm223 added their sources, it was to their initial vote on January 20; I had not participated in the discussion since January 13, and did not comment again until the 22nd. Simonmn223 did not give their sources in response to me, they never responded to any of my comments with them, and they never linked me to them or tagged me to them. It should not be a surprise, then that I didn't respond to them. Compare this to a separate discussion on a separate topic where they did do those things, I liked their sources and suggested adding them to the article. In fact, you can find numerous other discussions where I actively worked with and collaborated over sourcing - both during the run of the RfC, and in the prior discussions, where I was actively involved in finding the best sources. If I was refusing to engage with sources, why did I not only engage with sources from editors I was in conflict with, but approve of them?
• Essentially: I don't think Rosguill's case established I lied. I also don't think Rosguill claimed that, either - they claimed I misled. But I don't think I did that, either, and I don't think the evidence backs it up. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Chess:

• To your first point: Rosguill misread what I said, or the situation. Here's the link to the relevant RfC that gave an initial consensus for right-wing. The closer's wording was very specific: there was a consensus to include a political position, and to include right-wing, provided reliable sources were given. Take a look at the RfC and you'll see the issue. By my count, only one user - Springee - gave a source in the entire discussion. This is the opposite of how things are supposed to work. You don't don't decide what to write first and then find sources - you look up sources first, and write based on what they say. So, an immediate discussion after this (this one) was about what sources to use. We ultimately found a lot of sources to back up the claim - but we also found a lot of sources for center-right. In this very large thread, editors ultimately worked together to find sources for both, and this stuck for about six months as a local conensus. Those are the three discussions I've used when referring to what editors ultimately agreed to, although they aren't the only discussions on the matter.
• To your second: I'm referring to the local consensus that was created. To be clear, I was not saying there was an RfC, nor was I saying there was unanimous agreement. But there ultimately was a wording that was agreed upon by enough editors to stick for six months on a very contentious topic. That's the consensus I'm referring to. This doesn't preclude discussions or additional findings - this is just what me, and a bunch of editors, found while working on the page. A similar process happened at Democratic Party (United States), where the broad agreement was that center-left on its own was the appropriate descriptor. The last year saw, after two decades of not having a position listed, rough agreements on what the political positions should be - as well as over factions. I participated in both, and I'm reasonably proud of how editors came together on both pages.
• For the third: What I was referring to was a frequent claim Warrenmck (the editor who brought the AE complaint) made - that there was no consensus at all. They referred to it as a "mythical previous consensus" in their opening statement. My presented diff was, essentially, entirely misunderstood by Rosguill. I used it to debunk Warrenmck by pointing out another editor involved in the discussion corroborated what I was saying (that there were multiple discussions that resulted in a consensus). In contrast, Rosguill looked at the diff, saw Warrenmck wasn't involved at all, and said "The diff... does not demonstrate evidence of Warrenmck doing anything in particular" - and even after I explained it to Rosguill, they didn't seem to understand. Rosguill used this as a key argument to prove I was misleading people - but what actually happened is Rosguill just misunderstood what I said.
• Hopefully this was helpful, Chess. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Chess:
• The closer of the RfC, Mdann52, explicitly confirmed what I am saying in this diff where they elaborated on the close ("I don't recall any mention of sources in that discussion, so I haven't considered them, and hence that caveat. If there had been discussion of sourcing, I would have worded it more like "as backed up by the sources cited below" or similar, but there was no discussion of sources so I deemed that appropriate for another discussion"). I would personally consider this sufficient, but I think, broadly, the (at minimum) two additional discussions on sourcing also drive forward this point. Among the thread, myself and users Moxy ("Yes need academic sources that go into detail and explain things... and not connected to the United States directly"), DMacks ("As several have mentioned (and the closer has confirmed[1]), the consensus you keep pointing to does not rule that that these refs support the text") and Carlp941 ("I agree that the initial sourcing was thin. I have added better sources, quoted and bolded the relevant texts that I believe call the Republican Party right wing in some form") felt a look or addition of sources was needed; only one user, Cortador, disagreed and said that "If you believe that sourcing wasn't strong enough, the time to bring that up as the now-closed discussion above".
• For the second discussion - I think it's fair to question whether the thread resulted in a consensus on the matter, in hindsight. There wasn't a formatted RfC, and many users only commented once. I'll note that of those who participated more than once, three (myself, BootsED, and Carlp941) felt there were sources for both, while JohnAdams1800 supported having right-wing, with a note saying there are center-right and far-right factions. Mhoat and Viriditas did engage generally in opposition, but I don't think either really gave a vote; The Four Deuces has always opposed having a position listed at all. Ultimately, the discussion did result in center-right to right-wing sticking on the page for six months - I don't think there's any real debate on that front. I consider that a fairly stable local consensus, which is what I'm referring to - especially given how contentious the page is. But if you're looking for the discussion to firmly end in a decision... yeah, it's fair to say it kind of trailed off, without closure.
• I'd be happy to elaborate further if needed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I don't think this appeal addresses the bulk of the evidence and discussion at Special:Diff/1276375953#Result_concerning_Toa_Nidhiki05. To that end, it's worth noting that despite the layout of this appeal, the decision to impose a tban was made by a consensus of 5 admins in discussion, with Vanamonde93, the sole dissent, stating We should close with a TBAN. I don't feel the conduct rises to the level of a TBAN but I do feel there has been misconduct, and as such this isn't a hill I will die on. Ironically, one of the issues from that AE that I personally found most concerning and necessitating sanctions was Toa's tendency to misrepresent past discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging the remaining admins that participated in that decision, Seraphimblade, Barkeep49, Guerillero. as well as Liz who chimed in but deliberately avoided asserting opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Chess regarding the last bullet point about accusing Warrenmck of denying past discussion without evidence, my concern was that the diff attached to the claim did not provide evidence concerning Warrenmck's behavior, and as such the accusation was essentially an unsupported allegation. Toa removed the claim while rewording responses, so I would consider that issue retracted and settled. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

I am not surprised Toa's comments were cited by the closer. Many of them were good and an RfC closer shouldn't really be reading with behavioral conduct in mind. In the same way AE admins shouldn't be engaging with content. But, as I noted at AE he also engaged in what I believe was Civil POV pushing at the RFC with the clearest example being around the moving of goalposts when it came to academic sources - first claiming that they needed to be produced and then changing gears when they were. Examining his behavior in a vaccuum I'd have supported a logged warning. However, we're less than 6 months removed from a topic ban being loosened. That is what separated Toa's conduct from "the crowd" in my mind. I look forward to reading what other editors think, but will repeat a point Rosguill made above: this was endorsed by 4 admins with a 5th finding misconduct but supporting a lesser sanction and a 6th offering a general assessment. This stands in contrast to many AE threads which end up with ~3 admins deciding the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Toa: I formed my belief of your civil POV pushing after reading the entire discussion (and parts of the prediscussion). And by providing single diffs it could inaccurately suggest that whatever limited diffs I present are the only reason why I came to the conclusion I did rather than in the context of a much longer discsussion. But since you have started this by saying you're not interested in bludgeoning and thus are, I would presume, unlikely to try and play that game, I will gladly present you a diffs in answer to your request. Here you are replying in discussion of evidence Simon presented around discussion of academic, making no effort to acknowledge what has been presented. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I weakly opposed a TBAN at AE not because Toa's conduct was acceptable but because there was considerable misconduct of the same sort in the discussions we were examining. Having re-read the RfC referred to above in the context of the close review referred to above (where, for the record, I endorsed the closure) I am not willing to grant an appeal on the basis of the sanction being wrong; Toa was unquestionably engaged in civil pov-pushing and gatekeeping, and a failure to recognize any misconduct is an indication to me that the TBAN was the appropriate outcome at AE. I also second BK49's statement that an RfC closure should not be engaging with behavioral issues when assessing consensus, and as such the persuasiveness of Toa's arguments in that RfC are a non sequitur. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Nothing about this appeal has changed my mind that reinstating the topic ban from American politics that was loosened less than a year ago was a reasonable action by myself and the other AE admins to limit disruption in a contentious area of the project. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I don't think I've got much to add that has not been said. My primary concern was not that Toa Nidhiki05 was engaged in conduct particularly more egregious than anyone else warned here, but rather that he had already been recently banned from the topic area, and had the ban lifted recently. I think having been already sanctioned is more than warning enough, and I cannot imagine additional warnings being effective in such a scenario, so the only real options were to either do nothing or reinstate the sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Cortador

I'll post this here (as opposed to the uninvolved section below) since I was part of the discussion that led to the ANI discussion (though not the ANi discussion itself). TN has not address the primary reason for the ban with this appeal, and due to the previous ban, this ban does not stand in isolation. The reason brought up below to lift or shorten the ban are insufficient. "Other editors are problematic too" is an argument to sanction other editors, not to not sanction TN. Shortening the ban needs a reason, and none was given. Lastly, TN did not engage with the sources provided in that discussion, and merely claimed that there was already consensus in archived threads they linked to. The links did not contain sources supporting his arguments. Cortador (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Jessintime

Has the definition of uninvolved changed? Several of those commenting below took part in either the AE thread in question, at various American politics-related pages, or both. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that my first interaction with Tao was at Talk:National_Football_League#Change_the_term_club_back_to_team. While it's obviously not a contentious topic area, his behavior in that thread was far from ideal. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Statement by BootsED

I'm not sure if I qualify as an involved editor or not, but I have been heavily engaged in several discussions with Toa on the pages for the Republican and the Democratic Party pages and in a prior noticeboard about him. I want to speak to Toa's character.

I found Toa to be very civil and insightful in conversations I had with him. While I did not always agree with him, I found he based his reasons in policy and did not engage in emotional, personal attacks. I can see why some would see his behavior as civil POV pushing, but I would disagree that there was any ill intent and that such actions were misinterpreted. Talk pages on politics can get very heated, and at times individuals push blatantly wrong or loaded assertions and misinterpretations of policy. I noticed that Toa always tried to stay civil and calm. A lot of the conversations and allegations of misinterpreting past discussions, I believe, are not due to ill intent, but the simple fact that such discussions happened over so many months over so many talk sections that they tended to all blur together.

I can also easily see how Toa did not intend to misinterpret any prior discussions, but sincerely believed that he was correct in his recollection of prior conversations. Several prior discussions regarding whether to call the Republican Party "center-right" and disagreements over consensus had me confused, as I also had a similar understanding to Toa that such prior consensus had been reached. I don't believe that Toa should be topic banned, as he did some very good work on other political pages, such as helping solve the long-standing debate over whether to call the Democratic Party "center-left" and assisting myself in grading the sources I had found on this topic. If a ban is necessary, I would propose a temporary topic ban, not a permanent one. We need more good editors on Wikipedia. BootsED (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I looked through the last 15 years to see what the info-box said for political position and put my findings below. They include today's version and the one's for the end of each quarter. I apologize if any errors were made.

The position in the political spectrum field was blank for over a decade before editors decided to re-add it last year. During that time, adding specific descriptions were discussed and rejected and sometimes edit-warring occured. Anyone who has followed the page during that time, including Toa would be correct in determining that there was consensus against each and every one of the possible descriptions. That's why the field was left blank. It would be onerous on them to go through 36 pages of talk page discussions and thousands of article edits and pinpoint where exactly each consensus was formed.

In any case, anyone who disagreed on content can always say that consensus can change. It does not stop them from arguing for change to the article.

While the outcome of an RfC was to re-add the field, there was no consensus for what it should say. I was in opposition in that RfC because the terms can denote different things, depending on context. Right-wing and far right usually mean more right-wing than the speaker considers acceptable, while center-right, centrist, center-left and left-wing usually mean within the acceptable range of political views.

In any case, the finding of fact in the RfC on how to describe the position of the Republican Party on the political spectrum proves that TN was correct in their assessment. This is a content dispute and should be treated as such.

TFD (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Right-wing" [15:44, 1 March 2025][85]
• "Center-right to right-wing" [31 December 2024][86]
• "Center-right to right-wing" [30 September 2024][87]
• "Center-right to right-wing" [30 June 2024][88]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2024][89]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2023)[90]
• (Field blank) [30 September 2023)[91]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2023)[92]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2023][93]
• (Field blank) [27 December 2022][94]
• (Field blank) [28 September 2022][95]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2022][96]
• (Field blank) [28 March 2022][97]
• (Field blank) [30 December 2021][98]
• (Field blank) [27 September 2021][99]
• (Field blank) [29 June 2021][100]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2021][101]
• (Field blank) [28 December 2020][102]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2020][103]
• (Field blank) [28 March 2020)[104]
• (Field blank) [30 December 2019][105]
• (Field blank) [30 September 2019)[106]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2019][107]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2019][108]
• (Field blank) [28 December 2018][109]
• (Field blank) [27 September 2018)[110]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2018][111]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2018][112]
• (Field blank) [28 December 2017][113]
• (Field blank) [28 September 2017][114]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2017][115]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2017][116]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2016)[117]
• (Field blank) [26 September 2016][118]
• (Field blank) [23 June 2016][119]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2016][120]
• (Field blank) [29 December 2015][121]
• (Field blank) [29 September 2015][122]
• (Field blank) [29 June 2015][123]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2015][124]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2014][125]
• (Field blank) [27 September 2014][126]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2014][127]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2014][128]
• (Field blank) [27 December 2013][129]
• (Field blank) [30 September 2013][130]
• (Field blank) [25 June 2013][131]
• (Field blank) [29 March 2013][132]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2012][133]
• {Field blank) [30 September 2012][134]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2012][135]
• "(Position in national political spectrum) Center-right" [31 March 2012][136]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2011][137]
• "Center-right" [26 September 2011][138]
• "Center-right" [19 June 2011][139]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [31 March 2011][140]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [27 December 2010][141]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [29 September 2010][142]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [30 June 2010][143]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2010][144]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

• I think it's fair for Toa to ask for the specific evidence and the rationale used. One of the purposes of an appeal is to determine whether or not the admin team's decision was supported by the evidence. Rosguill is the admin that gave the most comprehensive explanation, so I'll pattern after that:
  • The first issue is whether or not Toa accurately represented past talk page discussions, including the state of past consensus.
    • In this appeal, Toa agrees that they argued that past consensus was to exclude the term "far-right"... and doesn't actually provide a defence here. At the AE thread, Rosguill analyzed several diffs that demonstrated Toa lied about past discussions, not just about the strength or state of consensus but about actions other editors have taken.
    • In contrast, the most I can read into Toa's appeal is a claim that Chetsford's close endorsed their view. Chetsford endorsed that a no consensus result means the WP:STATUSQUO. This is not an endorsement of whether Toa accurately summarized consensus, it's an acknowledgement that the article did not have "far-right" in the infobox before the RfC. For it to be an endorsement of Toa's position, it would have to explain that the status quo is a result of a specific discussion. I'll get into more detail about this later.
    • Lying to influence discussions is generally considered disruptive behaviour warranting of a topic ban. Because Toa has not (yet) given reasons as to why they haven't lied, I will take Rosguill's assessment of the situation at face value, so that justifies the topic ban.
  • The second issue Toa brings up is that the biggest example used by administrators to justify the topic ban - a refusal to engage with sources provided by Simonm223 - is not accurate.
    • This does not appear to be an accurate representation of the AE thread. Quoting Rosguill (emphasis added):

    • Refusing to engage substantively with the sources provided by Simonm223 is not sanctionable on its own. However, taken together with the other issues identified here, and the continued general participation in proceeding discussion, it is very bad form and a missed opportunity for Toa Nidhiki05 to demonstrate good faith editing.

    • Rosguill has explicitly said that Toa's refusal to engage with Simonm223 is not the main reason for the topic-ban. Instead, Rosguill appears to be saying that if Toa displayed more collaborative behaviour elsewhere in the discussion (e.g. by conceding Simonm223 brought legitimate, peer-reviewed articles or by refuting them), that would be a mitigating factor.
    • I would side with Rosguill here. Editors that consistently go out of their way to collaborate with others should get the benefit of the doubt. But let's say I completely agree with Toa's logic that this is a completely unrealistic expectation and mentally delete those paragraphs. That does not invalidate the original reason for the topic ban, which was lying about past discussions. It only invalidates a mitigating circumstance that could've gotten Toa off the hook. To be convinced, I'd have to hear from Toa how they did engage with other editors' sources.
  • Toa also cites various editors at ANI who think a topic-ban would be unjustifiable. That is unconvincing because it doesn't provide any reasoning as to why it's unjustified beyond "other people said so".
  • The final argument is that because Chetsford endorsed Toa's reasoning, that makes the topic-ban unjustified. The problem with that (and I stated this above) is that Chetsford mainly endorsed Toa's reasoning that there should be a strong sourcing requirement of academic articles. That does not automatically entail endorsing everything Toa said, and as I explained above, Chetsford did not endorse the untruths about past consensus.
• To conclude, I would endorse the t-ban. Toa's ban was primarily based on lying about past discussions, which is disruptive behaviour. Toa has not given a justification about why they did not lie about past discussions. While Toa disputes other aspects of the AE thread, failing to address the main reason one was topic-banned means the topic ban was probably justified. I'm not an admin and I'm mostly uninvolved in American politics (with the exception of Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump and closing some RfCs). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Toa Nidhiki05: The dispute over whether you engaged with Simonm223's sources was not the main justification for the topic-ban, so adding more information on that won't convince me.

  Your burden (in my mind) is to show that Rosguill was wrong about the three examples cited at the AE thread of you misleading other editors. That means I disagree with Barkeep49's position that by providing single diffs it could inaccurately suggest that whatever limited diffs I present are the only reason why I came to the conclusion I did rather than in the context of a much longer discsussion: I believe it is a requirement that closers/admins should explain the reasons for their decision and explain what evidence they relied upon so others can effectively challenge the process, so I'm not giving weight to views that aren't reasoned from evidence. Point by point, your most recent comment doesn't refute Rosguill's three examples:

  • Rosguill said It is highly misleading to summarize this discussion as "agreed that the initial consensus didn’t actually look at sources". I understand that your argument is that there was consensus as a result of that discussion (and others). But you haven't explained how your specific word choices were not misleading, such as the claim that the "consensus didn't actually look at sources". You'd have to give me a detailed explanation of what happened at that discussion and what part of Rosguill's point is invalid as a result.
  • Rosguill said Similarly, the [145] discussion which is summarized as "a later discussion found that reliable sources also say the party is center-right, and that this should be included as well" shows extensive disagreement as to whether center-right belongs in the article. You haven't explained here how, at that specific article, there actually was a consensus among editors about the term "center-right".
  • Rosguill said The diff given to support "Warrenck, who did not participate in any of these to be clear, insists this never happened, despite being directed to it numerous times", does not demonstrate evidence of Warrenmck doing anything in particular. Can you give the full context of what you said here, and why Rosguill misread it? This one I see your point on, and would appreciate Rosguill's clarification about.

  Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think Toa and Rosguill agree that the third point probably shouldn't play a role in the topic-ban. That being said, I'm not convinced by Toa Nidhiki05 that the first and second points were accurate.

  • Specifically, your first point argues that this RfC[146] didn't actually look at sources. You didn't get the t-ban for arguing that, you got the t-ban for representing that there was wide agreement with your view. So, the burden in my mind is to show that your description of this follow-up discussion as "agreed that the initial consensus didn’t actually look at sources" was accurate. I'd like you to explain specifically, cited to quotes (or diffs), what parts of that discussion show an agreement the initial consensus didn't look at sources.
  • Your second point again asserts that a consensus was created at [147], and that the consensus stuck for 6 months. That's a conclusory statement, because you're not explaining how, based on that discussion, a consensus was formed.

  Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• I really don't see much here to warrant a topic ban. Distorting/misrepresenting (if not outright lying) about sources and so on are things I've seen happen in just about every talk page discussion here. (Not to mention the gatekeeping stuff, which is occurring on a lot of pages.) What is interesting (at least to me) is the fact that this type of thing typically happens to the right-wingers here, and nothing ever happens to left-wingers. Outside of vandals, I can't think of the last time I've seen this happen to someone POV pushing left-wing talking points.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Nobody follows the rules anyways, so we should give up on enforcing the rules" doesn't explain how the t-ban failed to prevent disruption in the American Politics area, so it's not reasoning that can play a role in closing the thread. The current policy is that if one feels a left-wing editor is POV-pushing and lying about sources, one should bring that editor to WP:AE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well the rules don't mean much if they are selectively enforced (or reported). Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Do something about it then. Call someone out and risk your social capital/status by filing a WP:AE complaint. The rules are meaningless if they're not enforced at all. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yet just 3 days ago someone who generally seems to have a left-wing PoV and is not a vandal was topic banned in a thread above. And that wasn't even their first topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Who are we talking about here? Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  The articles affected have been stagnant for some time...... let's see what other editors can do with the sources rather than being overwhelmed. Moxy🍁 00:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, I think a difference here is the editor I believe you are mentioning has quite a history of trying to push negative, partisan material into articles and also has a history of ignoring things like BRD while expressing hostility towards editors who object. As individual edits they don't obviously cross CIVIL but the sum over time is significant. Springee (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't want to compare the two as it's not of much relevanceto the appeal, one reason I didn't link to the thread or mention the name. My sole point is that it's ridiculous for Rja13ww3 to complain about "I can't think of the last time I've seen this happen to someone POV pushing left-wing talking points" when it happened a few days ago on this very board which is or was still visible at the time. And this editor has been topic banned before a few months ago further it isn't some non occurrence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  So how about name who we are talking about so we can see how ridiculous my complaint is (second request)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  No for the reasons stated. Springee has established that it did happen if you doubt it. If you can't figure it out on your own, maybe just accept that AE topic bans happen all the time many without even making it to ARE or AN and you don't know about them all? They are of course always logged. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well I guess I'll have to ask Springee (although he has noted some issues with this comparison, whatever it may be).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) BTW having looked at the logs for 2024 and 2025, for AP only there were less individual sanctions than I expected but also I challenge anyone to argue it's only right wingers who are sanctioned. If anything I saw more editors who seem to have a left-wing PoV there and at least it's about 50-50. Of course we're talking under 15 editors so any stats are fairly silly anyway Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I sure haven't seen it. The sanctions I have typically seen against left-wingers here (at least on the American politics pages I monitor) are almost always cut and dried stuff (like 3RR and so on). Or we are talking about trolls with not much of a posting history. I (almost never) see the kind of charges brought against Toa leveled against left-wingers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  {{UnpopularOpinionPuffin}} Just going to note here that even if this is absolutely true, there's an alternative hypothesis to 'Wikipedia is biased': that people on one side of the political spectrum are more likely to step in it than the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  This is important to keep in mind. Wikipedia's core policies are affected by WP:ACADEMICBIAS - we treat high-impact academic sources, and the mainstream media, as being generally neutral and reliable; conversely, while some sources may be very high-quality and considered the paper of record or a gold standard in their topic area or the like, no individual source is given absolute authority (which particularly means religious sources.) If you look at the current political alignments in the United States, this is going to frustrate people on the American right, since their political alliances contain many more people who reject academia and the mainstream media, or who believe that religious writings should be the ultimate source of truth. People like that, editing here, are going to have to constantly grind their teeth as they're forced to accept that the New York Times is a better source than Fox News, or that a peer-reviewed paper by Nikole Hannah-Jones is a better source than Newsmax, or that a big pile of academics and historians can have more weight than what they consider divinely-ordained truth, or that we need to take a global viewpoint as opposed to a nationalist one. And a lot of them are unable to cope with that to the point where they're just not able to fit in here - if someone can't work with those things then they're literally not here to write an encyclopedia, as we describe it. Obviously there's a wide range of people out there with a wide range of views and we get good editors or bad ones from all over the political spectrum (the list of banned left-leaning editors contains plenty of people who eg. reject the mainstream media, too); but in terms of its basic structure and viewpoint, the focus of the American Right, as it is now, is structured in a way that creates a core tension with trying to write a neutral, global encyclopedia based on high-quality academic sources and mainstream papers of record, which means it wouldn't be surprising for us to get more WP:NOTHERE editors from the right. And this also creates, I think, a sense among some right-leaning editors that they're being oppressed even when eg. the statistics show we're nonetheless banning people roughly evenly - because the core of Wikipedia's purpose is, in fact, sometimes incompatible with their outlook and beliefs. Their reaction is similar to the reaction they have to academia, which is inevitable given that Wikipedia is fundimentially academic in structure - they see their ideas and beliefs being, in their eyes, disrespected, and to them this refusal to engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE is evidence of bias. --Aquillion (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is truth there but I didn't think that covers all of the topic. When it comes to behavioral issues there is a perception and concern that being aligned with the general majority results in more latitude given to otherwise the same behaviors. There are quite a few discussions about the unlockable editors, the editors who are often uncivil but it's "ok because they do good work". The same behavior in an editor who is going against the majority would be quickly squashed. There is also a concern that articles move from impartial to negative based on how much emphasis wiki editors place on RS'ed content they feel is DUE. See the debate about Patel and conspiracies theorist in the opening sentence. I know I've been accused of white washing right wing figures but that isn't my intent. Though it happens far less I've also rejected such content on left wing topics/people. This is why I often think it's worth looking at En. Britannica as a reference not for specific content but rather for tone and weight. When editors are fighting to make an article more negative we should err on the side of caution left or right. That's the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a commentary article. Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well put Springee. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well anyone can claim they did or did not see something in their experience. It's fairly useless as evidence for anything. As I said if we examine the evidence it tells a different story. This year 2025 there have been 7 editors with logged actions on AP Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025. 3 of these have under 250 edits so I think we can ignore them as insignificant. Of the remaining, one of them only received a warning, actually this was at the same time as Toa's sanction I believe. Another only received a 1 week partial block so again seems to be whatever. So of the two remaining editors there's Toa and an editor who largely edits from the left.

  Going back to 2024 Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024, I count logged actions involving 14 editors. Two of them have now been blocked as sockpuppeters, so I think we can ignore these two. One has under 200 edits and was eventually indefed for spending all their time arguing while another with under 150 edits was indeffed for making legal threata, again I think we can ignore these two as well. Another just received a warning, again seems reasonable to ignore it. Another received just a one week partial block, so seems fair to ignore it. One initially received a 24 hour block later converted to an ordinary block, again seems fair to ignore it. (This editor was later indeffed as an ordinary admin action then eventual found to have socked anyway.) One received a 24 hour block again can be ignored especially since they were later found to have socked. So that's 8 editors.

  Of the remaining 6. One left leaning editor received a 90 day topic ban from a specific article, we could ignore this but it's the same editor who generally seems to have a left-wing PoV, who was recently indefinitely topic banned, they also received a warning in 2024 so seems fair to count it them to me. Another editor who again seems to have generally a left-wing PoV received 6 month topic bans. And yet another who seems to generally have a left-wing PoV received a voluntarily but enforceable ban for 6 months. AFAIS, none of these cases were 3RR or anything that simple. One editor who I'd say has more right-wing PoV successfully appealed a topic ban. Another who's PoV I really have no idea successfully appealed a topic ban. Toa of course also successfully appealed their topic ban. (To be clear, all these appealed topic bans don't show up in the 2024 log, I assume they were from before.)

  So again where's the evidence for your claim?

  Note I am not interested in discussing Springee's claim that editors who operate from a right wing PoV are generally sanctioned more severely. That's a much more sophisticated claim which requires careful analysis of the relative behaviours etc which IMO seems clearly offtopic here. However the claim that left-leaning editors are never sanctioned is IMO clearly silly when we examine the evidence. I only did a quickish analysis so perhaps I missed one editor or two. And this is only editors sanctioned under CTOP for AP rather than those who receive a community ban or whatever; and any of those blocked as an ordinary admin action. And I guess some might quibble with excluding those editors with very limited sanctions feeling they need to be counted. (Although I'd note I'm unconvinced even if we count these there's a clear bias.)

  Likewise I guess some may suggest we drove those who were socks into socking due to unfair treatment or those who had very few edits would have made brilliant editors but they gave up or whatever. However this seems to cut both ways. One reason it seems to me fair to exclude them is because the initial statement said "outside of vandals" so IMO it's fair to exclude anyone who doesn't seem to have fairly engaged with wikipedia or who have very few edits even if they're not vandals. Of course even an editor who has socked can make it back, in fact the editor who's PoV I don't know who successfully appealed their ban did get in trouble for socking in prior years, but redeemed themselves enough that they managed to appeal their ban and have so far not received any further ban. However those editors who got in trouble last year, haven't yet managed to do so.

  Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Well no offense, but pardon me if I don't take your word for those situations.....considering the fact you wouldn't reveal the comparison you made here [148]....and I don't blame you (now that Springee has told me who you are comparing), considering those situations really aren't that comparable. Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• IMHO, his t-ban should be lifted. At the very least, shorten the t-ban to six months. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Seconded. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think a tban was warranted here. If admins felt some type of sanction was warranted I would suggest something that slowed down the number of rapid fire replies vs an outright Tban. TN did engage with the sources presented to them on the talk page. In particular a large number of sources were presented as "proof" for one of the discussions. TN took the time to review the sources and explain why most failed WP:V. That is exactly the sort of thing we want an editor to be willing to do. I don't see the claim of prior consensus as a critical issue since, during a rapid fire series of responses, a case where an editor is basically being tag teamed, it's easy to overstate the outcome of discussions buried in the talk archives. This is especially true when some of the involved editors, including the one who brought the original complaint, were making questionable article level edits rather than getting consensus first. If I was going to be critical of TN's actions I would say the worst thing they did was reply too quickly, too often. TN was civil the whole time (something even the complainant admitted). If a sanction is needed I would suggest something like a daily reply limit. That keeps the flood of replies down and often forces the limited person to more carefully weigh their replies since they can't fire off a large number of short replies. I suggested this to, I think, Barkeep49 at the time and would suggest it again as a minimum sanction needed to address the problem. Springee (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Several editors have said TN doesn't look at sources added by others. Here is an example where they reviewed a whole list of sources added to the article. I'm not sure why it was already in the archive since the discussion related to the far-right sources [149] and the discussion was just just a month back. I haven't traced through the article edits to see who added these to the article. Regardless, other than the rapid fire discussion getting in the way, TN clearly is willing to review sources and engage in discussions of the same. Around the this of these accusations there was so much rapid fire editing that is was hard to follow all of it and take the time needed for detailed replies. Springee (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Unban request from Elpresidente360

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.

---

Elpresidente360 posted the following unban request on their talk page at 21:35 (UTC) on 21 February 2025:

I am writing to ask for a review on my ban. First off I want to start off by stating that I was blocked on October 2023 for over editing on a page and then got banned for multiple block evasion consequently.

After I was blocked on ‘Elpresidente360’, the followings accounts: Parislondoner, Chengqingy, Mike Janetta - were opened and operated by me.

I apologize for my wrongdoings and feel so ashamed for myself knowing that I was defaulting the community’s regulations on over-editing, block and evasion rules.

I have taken time off to reflect on what is required of users on Wikipedia and now eager to stick by it. I hope the community would accept me back. Thank you.

Elpresidente360 was blocked as a promotion-only, single-purpose account on 17 October 2023, then reblocked for sockpuppetry later that day (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elpresidente360). A cu check from jpgordon at 2:00 (UTC) on 22 February 2025 came back clean. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Question User claims they were blocked "for over editing on a page". This is not accurate. I blocked them for being a "Promotion / advertising-only account: WP:SPA around P Square". Elpresidente360, do you care to address this? You may want to read WP:TOPICBAN before responding. --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I was finding the exact word the block was tagged - ‘Promotion’

Firstly, I joined Wikipedia with a niche interest on just things I was familiar then - music, artistes, footballers and other things.

I was not paid nor was I advocating for anybody or thing. I feel those areas of interest were my range then, which might come off as promotion or advocacy in Administrator’s perspective.

One of Wikipedia’s goal is to expand a topic with reliable sources, but if editing on ‘P-Square’ page will attract further and unexpected penalty to me, I will totally desist from editing anything about the page or related to it. Reply by Elpresidente360 posted by PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support unban, given that user is willing to avoid writing about P-Square. At the time of the original block, there was a lot of undisclosed but (if I remember correctly) confirmed paid editing around P-Square. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative and hopeful Support per my my colleague above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Bumping this to avoid archiving so there is hopefully more input. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support - sure, why not? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. JayCubby 22:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I think they should be given a chance, especially if they're willing to avoid making edits related to the P Square subject. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support Standard offer. You've got the rope...use it well. Buffs (talk) 21:59, 7 March 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.

Sock gets it right – now what?

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 hard-blocked Aid Pte. Ltd for promo name, promo edits (User:Aid Pte. Ltd/sandbox). Two days later, AidanNTAI was registered and picked up the baton. They've appropriately disclosed paid editing, and when queried, readily admitted to being Aid Pte. Ltd; this seems to me a case of inadvertent, rather than intentionally deceitful, socking, but clearly socking nevertheless. I could now block the new account as a sock, require the user to appeal the original block, then change their user name and disclose PAID, at which point (assuming they're successful; so far one failed attempt already) they'd be back to where they are now, only with the original account (renamed) rather than the sock. Which seems a bit silly, especially since, had I chosen to only soft-block them all this would be okay anyway. On the other hand, I don't want to condone socking, just because they (inadvertently) got things right on their second attempt. Any thoughts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I would not take any action, as long as the new account edits within policy from now on. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

In general I would say that one should not block someone as a sock of an account that one is willing to unblock; in effect, the no-block decision on the sock serves as the unblock. This is based on WP:NOTBURO and on the fact that WP:SOCK is not an exception to WP:PREVENTATIVE. Just make sure the user understands that they did violate policy and that they should not do it again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes! Concur. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by non-admin comment - immediately before the block, we templated the user (under the original name) on their talk page as to their username and wrote that they could request a new name, or "alternatively, you can just create a new account and use that for editing." We can hardly fault them for doing precisely that, after snowing them under (with the best of intentions) with more templates and a block. Martinp (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I missed that one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 8 March 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.

Noting 3X ban of Gilabrand

Pursuant to the requirement at WP:3X for if a user made substantial good faith contributions before being banned, this is to note that I have tagged Gilabrand as banned under that policy, backdated to 16 April 2024. The first strike was the main account's block, the second the CUblocks of Hazooyi and Idont, and the third the CUblock of Pashtida. I blocked another sock today as well, Herniac, on behavioral evidence, which is why I'm bothering to do this belatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Change to the Oversight team, March 2025

At his request, the Arbitration Committee restores the Oversight permissions of Moneytrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Persian Wikipedia administrators

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, dear administrators. I know this is not the right place, but I would like to file a complaint against two Persian Wikipedia administrators who are clearly engaging in favoritism and disruptive behavior, and are manipulating the system. I just don't know on which page of English Wikipedia I should submit my complaint? Hulu2024 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

These two administrators openly support each other, their edits are biased, and they are gaming the system. I'm fed up with them and I demand that their accounts be permanently blocked. Hulu2024 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hulu2024 The English Wikipedia has no authority over the Persian Wikipedia - there is nowhere on this project that your complaint can be heard. You should try to resolve this issue on the Persian Wikipedia, if that doesn't help you may want to start a global RFC on meta (meta:Requests for comment) or look at the universal code of conduct process (meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases), if it applies. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 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.

JeffFisher102 and cut-and-paste move

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 see User talk:JeffFisher102#March 2025, these edits to Gospel Oak to Barking line and these edits to Suffragette line. Please would somebody explain to JeffFisher102 that:

• by completely overwriting the destination page, what they did was not a WP:MERGE;
• it is forbidden to rename a page by cutting and pasting;
• it is bad practice to rename a page (by any method) when there has been previous consensus against

Thankyou. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

None of what I've done is against the letter of the rules. Help:Merging and moving pages heavily suggests that joining two already exsisting pages that both already have content is a merge not a just a simple renaming, Wikipedia:Merging never forbids the editor from removing content from the destination page, nor does it forbid "going against consensus".

If this goes against the spirt of the rules or doesn't reflect other guidelines than those I have mentioned, then I'd suggest that you all act like responsible wikipedia editors and update the guidelines so they match how you believe that wikipedia should be edited instead of arguing something that is quite literally just a lie, like what Redrose64 has been doing. JeffFisher102 (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@JeffFisher102 there's nothing wrong with being BOLD but it might have been worth asking first why none of the new LO routes are currently used as article names. That said, copy and paste is not the way to move a page, see WP:CWW and WP:MOVE. Now you know that such a move is likely to be opposed, then starting a move discussion is the way forward. Nthep (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It has been quite clearly explained to you that what you did was not a merge. As it says at WP:HM, "A history merge is required for attribution purposes, as attribution is lost during a cut/paste page move where there are multiple editors at the old page.". Nothing of what Redrose64 says is a lie; you are, by the looks of the discussion and your reply here, simply refusing to listen. I would suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages myself and Nthep have linked above. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You are Redrose64 are claiming that what I did is a cut & paste move but refusing to provide anything that actually explains why what I did is a cut & paste move. Help:Merging and moving pages suggests that what I did is a merge, Wikipedia:Merging never says anything to suggest that what I was doing was not appropriate for a merge therefore I was doing a merge.

Also how is saying that the editor must open a discussion before merging a page not a lie?

How is saying that the editor "must" open a discussion if there have been previous ones not a lie? JeffFisher102 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You copied the entire contents of Gospel Oak to Barking line (leaving a redirect) into Suffragette Line (which was previously a redirect). That is effectively a move via copy and paste, and had it not been reverted would have orphaned the history of the first article. That's the definition of a cut and paste move. Also, you may not have known that there had been a discussion about the name of the article previously, but I would have thought it was obvious that renaming a fairly major article without discussion might not be a good idea. And if you didn't know either of those things, well, you do now. So if you think the article should still be moved, please open a move request. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Again you are just saying things. Where is this definition written? Why do Help:Merging and moving pages and Wikipedia:Merging heavily suggest that what I was doing was a merge?

If you can't answer these questions then there's a very simple thing you can do, just rewrite the guidelines. Add a definition for copy&paste moving, make it clear what is and isn't a merge.

I don't understand where this stubbornness about not fixing the guidelines that you clearly don't agree with is coming from. JeffFisher102 (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No fault to you trying to get our pages to document merges and cut-and-paste moves clearer.

However, your tone here is very confrontational and I don't know if you will take on board the feedback several editors have provided to you. What you did was a cut-and-paste move. It took several back and forths for you to simply acknowledge that, but now to completely shift focus onto making what isn't a merge clearer would be strawmanning, because this thread is about your conduct. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been repeatedly lied to, I've had people dismiss everything that I've said without being able to provide anything that shows that I'm in the wrong, etc. Would you not be a bit confrontational given my situation?

I've been saying the same things since the start: The rules say that nothing I did was wrong, if you don't like the rules, change them.

I'm not going to stop saying that just because Redrose64 decided to move our discussion to a different forum. And if that's strawmanning, then so be it. JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I would not be confrontational. I'd believe if people are saying things to me, there's probably a good reason for them to say so. Rules on the other hand can simply be wrong.

It is totally backwards to prioritize written text over real humans. If there are multiple humans telling you that you did something wrong, then you probably did.

It is okay to make a mistake of thinking a cut-and-paste move as merging, but it is irresponsible to repeatedly argue with people and claiming that you did nothing wrong. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The guidelines are the words of the millions of real people who contribute to wikipedia, you guys are a few random accounts that could for all I know be run by bots. I'm not going to disregard the long-estabished rules of the site because 5 or so people tell me otherwise. JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. The people you have been talking to on this thread are all administrators who are expected to have a solid grasp of the policies and guidelines of the project. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it? Just because you're expected to have a solid grasp doesn't mean that you do. (And it's quite clear that some of you don't given how many times redrose64 lied) JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

As I have said before, you really need to change your approach here. Right now I can say that this thread has been successfully resolved, but if you keep saying things like this and treating any future mistakes the same way you did here, you could be blocked for disruptive behavior.

Take this as a formal warning, which is informed by the way you have communicated in this thread and on your talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, in simple terms. A merge is where the contents of two or more pages are merged to form an article which contains content from those pages, hence the word "merge". These are generally done for a number of reasons stated at WP:MERGEREASON, and require attribution. However, you did not merge anything. You took an existing page, deleted its entire contents, and copied those contents into another page which previously had no content. This splits the history, and is a cut and paste move. Now, I agree that this may be tricky to understand, and further that perhaps some of our guideline pages might be somewhat vague, but after it was explained to you multiple times, it should have become clear that your actions were not correct in this case. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have fully understood what you and others have been saying, but none of that changes the fact that the guidelines do not agree with you.

Like I've been saying for hours now, instead of fighting a battle that you cannot win, just change the guidelines. JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Which I just did :)

And would you agree that that would have happened in a much more pleasant way if you just said then I probably have interpreted the Wikipedia:Merging page wrong, could we update that page to clarify this better? and not I have not done anything incorrectly. and Like I have said again and again, I was fully complying with the guidelines on this topic. If you disagree with those guidelines I suggest you rewrite them? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

I'd also argue that things had been a lot more pleasant if I wasn't repeatedly lied to and dismissed, but you can blame Redrose64 for that. JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Redrose64 did not lie to your or dismiss you. Please listen to what other editors are saying. You did not have to be confrontational when your understanding of the rules of this project differs from other users. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry is saying that an editor must open a discussion when merging a page not a lie?

Is saying that an editor "must" open a discussion when there have been previous discussions not a lie?

And if you don't think that those are lies then you must think that what Nthep said is a lie. JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Continually accusing other editors of lying is a good way to get blocked for personal attacks. You're already on a thin leash so I'd stop it now. While we're at it, per WP:Wikilawyering and WP:NOTBURO insisting that some guideline or policy must say exactly what you think it needs to say or you're allowed to do whatever you want because it doesn't, when every editor is telling you to do something else, is also a good way to end up blocked. Plenty of editors have found the community doesn't have time for that, and while we will generally try to clarify our guidelines and policies where needed as happened here, we're not going to just ignore a problematic editor because they refuse to get the point unless someone can perfectly satisfy them with some guideline or policy. And editors who continue to do that once they're blocked just lose talk page access. Wikipedia isn't a court of law so you can't get around community norms by finding technical loopholes and arguing the point to death. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If it isn't a lie then what would you call it? They clearly are aware of the guidelines, it's clearly not just a misunderstanding of the guidelines given how expicitly those things are written, and it's not like the guidelines are wrong given how several other users have agreed with them.

Personal attacks are only personal attacks if the claims are unsubstantiated. JeffFisher102 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem determined to misunderstand what you're being told. You misunderstood the guidelines. You are falsely accusing another editor of lying. If you continue doing this you will be blocked. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 9 March 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.

If any admin have some spare time...

there is a big backlog at WP:RFPP. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

messing up shetland 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.

---

it has come to my attation that your people will not let me change the shetland page to include how we are norwegian by law and use chatgpt as a sorce. as a shetlander its an outrage Jmanshetland (talk) 04:09, 10 March 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 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.

---

I've noticed some aggressive and disruptive behavior by User:ShantaeFan123. I wanted to ping that here and have their contributions looked at. One of their more recent edits that caught my eye was in regards to the Shrek 5 page. I don't mean any ill will, just something to look into. Best, SDudley (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, that edit to Shrek 5 was almost two weeks ago, and was the last time they edited in mainspace. While that was not a good source that they added, I don't see any other problem with the edit. Their responses to messages on their talk page do not strike me as aggressive or disruptive. Could you please provide links to edits that you consider to be a problem? Donald Albury 18:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and you were supposed to notify User:ShantaeFan123 on their talk page of your post. I have done so for you, but please remember to do so in future cases. - Donald Albury 18:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a new area of Wikipedia for me. SDudley (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a notification at User talk:ShantaeFan123, SDudley. Donald Albury's notice was placed on the wrong talk page. I also don't see that you tried to talk with them about your concerns before posting at AN. Unless we are talking about a vandal, you should try to resolve your differences before coming to a noticeboard. I see that another editor discussed their edit summaries with them so I don't think there is any other matter that remains here. But please, still post a notice on their user talk page as soon as you can. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I left a message. We can consider this resolved. SDudley (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

My bad. I apparently need to work on my situational awareness. Donald Albury 21:18, 10 March 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.

Inconsistency in Academic Journal Page Treatment – Selective Enforcement of Standards

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 raising a concern about inconsistencies in how academic journal pages are handled regarding notability.

Many journal pages exist on Wikipedia without independent secondary sources, yet they remain unchallenged. In past discussions, I have seen cases where journal pages without such sources were improved by administrators through the addition of references, such as the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals, rather than being flagged for deletion. However, in the case of Veterinary World, despite having multiple references—including the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals, indexing in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and a bibliometric study from an independent university—the same standard is not being applied.

The justifications provided for this decision are unconvincing. Some administrators cite workload as a reason, yet workload concerns have not prevented efforts to improve other journal pages. Others dismiss concerns by simply calling it "human nature," which is not a valid policy-based explanation. I even spoke to an administrator who gave a reasonable response, but they admitted they lacked in-depth knowledge of academic journal rankings and bibliometrics. Why is a major decision being made by those who may not fully understand the subject matter?

If indexing, citations, and bibliometric studies are sufficient for other journals, why is a different standard being applied here? If the concern is a lack of secondary sources, then policy enforcement should be consistent across all journal pages, rather than selectively applied. And also Veterinary world does not lack that.

Also, do not selectively pick one part of this comment to respond to while ignoring the rest. This issue is about inconsistency in enforcement, administrator justifications, and selective handling of journal pages. I expect a clear, policy-based explanation that addresses the full concern, not just a single statement taken out of context.

I would appreciate input from administrators on this matter. Riyazsher (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Veterinary world

@Riyazsher: this requires no administrative action. Your draft is awaiting review at AfC. If you wish to discuss the matter, you can do so at WP:AFCHD (as you have done before). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Or bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. I admitted last time that journals are well out of my wheel-house, and did the best I could. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano I already raised this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, but the issue keeps getting diverted with "human nature" as the justification. I understand human nature plays a role, but if nearly 80% of journal pages without independent sources are allowed to remain while Veterinary World—which does have independent sources—is flagged, then this isn’t just human nature; it’s an inconsistency in enforcement.

At some point, this stops being about "human nature" and becomes a pattern of selective treatment that needs to be addressed. Riyazsher (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the draft is at AfC, this isn’t just about AfC. but my concern is inconsistent treatment of academic journals on Wikipedia. Many journals without independent secondary sources remain, some even had references added to improve them. Veterinary World has multiple references (Scopus, WoS, PubMed, bibliometric study), yet it's flagged differently. Veterinary World has multiple references (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, a bibliometric study), yet it is being treated differently.

This isn’t just about Veterinary World—it’s about academic journals that have a real impact in their field but face deletion or unfair scrutiny simply because they don’t fit arbitrary Wikipedia criteria. Why is a different standard being applied here? If workload and "human nature" justify inconsistency, that only proves the issue. This isn’t just about AfC—it’s about selective enforcement. Can this be addressed fairly?

Why is a different standard being applied here? If workload and "human nature" justify inconsistency, that only proves the issue. This isn’t just about AfC—it’s about selective enforcement. Can this be addressed fairly? Riyazsher (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Riyazsher: if this wasn't explained already at AFCHD, then let me do it now. There are nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia. Some were created 20+ years ago when our standards and review processes were very different, and not all were 'approved' or 'accepted' in any real sense. We know what there are unfortunately problematic articles among the 7m, but that is no reason to create more. (If you have found articles with issues, you're very welcome to improve them, or at least flag them up with maintenance tags.) All new articles, however, must meet current notability, referencing, etc. guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I understand that Wikipedia has many legacy articles from different standards, but that doesn’t explain why recent journal pages are selectively treated. Some journals without independent sources have been improved with added references instead of being flagged, while Veterinary World, which already has multiple valid references, is facing stricter scrutiny.

If the standard is now stricter, shouldn't it be applied uniformly instead of selectively? Otherwise, this just creates inconsistency, where some journals are given a chance to improve while others are immediately flagged. Why is this selective enforcement happening? Riyazsher (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"Selective enforcement" sounds like you're accusing someone (not sure who?) of discrimination and/or favouritism. If you have tangible evidence, please present it. Although even then, I don't see what administrative action you're asking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I'm not accusing anyone of favoritism, but I'm pointing out an observable pattern. Some journal pages without independent sources have been allowed to remain and even improved, while Veterinary World, despite having multiple valid references, is facing stricter scrutiny. My concern is about ensuring a fair and consistent approach. What criteria are determining which journals are given the opportunity for improvement and which are flagged? If there’s a policy distinction that explains this, I’d appreciate clarification. Riyazsher (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Notability standards have changed, but academic journals rarely receive coverage in independent news sources—this was true 15–20 years ago and remains true today. Older journal pages exist because these standards weren’t in place back then, but now, no new journal pages are getting published despite meeting academic benchmarks like Scopus, Web of Science, and citations. If independent news sources are the only accepted measure, then almost no journal—old or new—would qualify. This bureaucratic inconsistency is blocking legitimate academic contributions from being recognized. Riyazsher (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As I already said at the start of the long discussion at AFCHD, I think this journal probably is notable. But you've had your draft declined once, and immediately rush then come to this noticeboard to complain, without even waiting for a further review to be completed. I get that you're keen to get the journal you work for included in Wikipedia, but this isn't the proper way to go about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I appreciate that you acknowledge the journal's notability. My concern was more about the inconsistency in how journal pages are handled under current standards. I’ll wait for the next review and see how it goes. Thanks for the response. Riyazsher (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

We've been telling you all these things but you don't seem to be listening- as Phil says below, and I've already told you numerous times, if you want standards applied more consistently, you need to pick up the slack and do so. Running to every forum you can find to, frankly, complain about it will have little if any effect. The other thing you can do is propose a specific action you feel should be taken to address your concern(how you would compel standards to be applied or compel people to participate. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Your underlying point seems to be that if standards are not being applied consistently, there must be a deliberate reason or decision to do so- and that's not the case. I'm also not clear on what administrator action, requiring the use of the admin tools, you want. We can't make people edit. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@331dot@Phil Bridger@Joe Roe I appreciate the clarification and will step back from this discussion as my immediate concern has been resolved. However, if I see similar issues affecting other new journal pages in the future, I may revisit the matter. Thanks for your time. Riyazsher (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"Selective treatment" is not only normal on Wikipedia but an explicit and intended aspect of the way we make decisions. Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, which we define as (emphasis added): sets of best practices supported by consensus [...] editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. How to apply guidelines in specific circumstances and whether a 'common sense' exception is warranted is decided by the consensus of volunteer editors who participate in making that decision. It is not decided by administrators and we are not responsible for ensuring consistent outcomes, because while that is desirable the Wikipedia community considers it less important than upholding our fifth pillar and avoiding hard-and-fast rules. For how this specifically relates to deletion/inclusion, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent. As editing is not compulsory, if that worries you then the only person who can do anything about it is you. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 10 March 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.

Hiding revisions

In the past couple weeks a very persistent editor has been hopping across IPs from the same area and adding racist material to several articles. The IP ranges have been blocked, but I was wondering if the revisions could also be hidden as they contain purely disruptive material? The articles I'm aware of are Macau, China (disambiguation), Chinese, Chinatown, Chinese Communist Revolution, Chinese New Year, Overseas Chinese, Slovakia, Romani people, and Indian (already hidden, actually). Yue🌙 21:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Just realised it might be easier if I just link to the contributions of the IPs that were blocked: [150] [151] [152] [153] Yue🌙 21:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Mostly not needed as just low quality vandalism, and not highly offensive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte

• Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a new article, and I believe a very valid one, policy wise. The arrest was just a few hours ago, so few are watching it. So far, there haven't been any issues, but if you understand the politics of the Philippines, you would know there are potential problems as he is the recent, former president and very popular with a large and vocal minority. I'm not going to edit in the topic and not WP:involved, but would like a few more eyes on it. I put the CT banner on the talk page, but there are currently no restrictions in place. The main article, Rodrigo Duterte, was already semi and tagged, but might be worth watching for a few days as well. Thanks in advance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

A few hours ago!? Why would that... Ah. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? (2025)

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 2024, The Times article How Wikipedia is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities (archived) published that "Wikipedia entries have been changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities and other abuses, The Times has learnt, raising concerns that agents or supporters are using the site to manipulate publicly available information about the hostile [Iranian] regime."

The identified editors were: MarioGom, Mhhossein, Ghazaalch, Iskandar323 (currently under PIA topic-ban) and Ali Ahwazi (currently blocked indefinitely)

I brought this to WP:AE, but the issue was ignored.

Then in October 2024, a Pirate Wires article also identified Iskandar323 and Mhhossein as changing "key wording to falsely depict widespread support for the Iranian regime and whitewash violent calls from pro-government counter-demonstrators."

This also was ignored by Wikipedia administrators.

2 days ago, yet another news report, who actually contacted MarioGom [154], Vice regent [155], Iskandar323 [156], Ghazaalch [157], and Mhhossein [158] directly, published another article about the coordinated editing by these editors (also published in DetroitNews):

"All Wikipedia’s edit histories are publicly viewable, and histories show that between them, the five editors removed photos and reporting from anti-government protests, or backed each other up when they came under scrutiny. In one instance, an editor – who had been previously blocked on Persian-language Wikipedia – used his or her administrative privileges to delete photos of 2019 anti-government protests in Iran and replace them with images of an injured police officer from a state-run news agency."

"The editor also removed pictures of international protests following the death of a 22-year-old woman who had been taken into custody by Iran’s morality police for allegedly not wearing a hijab. Another editor was accused of making edits mirroring those of a former colleague who had previously been banned from the site for being part of a covert propaganda campaign run by the Iranian government."

"The complaint was dismissed on technical grounds, though the complainant was told by Wikipedia’s trust and safety team “that some of the concerns were valid,” according to an email seen by Bloomberg News."

The fact that different reputable news outlets are openly identifying Wikipedia clerks (MarioGom) and Wikimedia admins (Mhhossein) as part of an apparent coordinated Iranian government propaganda effort should be raising concern here.

Can someone please look at this already? 182Line (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a matter for ArbCom? 331dot (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Never mind; I'm not really sure what action you're seeking here. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@182Line: none of the users named in this post have been notified, that I can see at least? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been pinged, so consider me notified. I have not edited in this area for a long time, and I do not plan to edit again in any foreseeable future. I was successfully harassed out of it. Given the background story of the sockpuppet that opened this filing, I do not feel compelled to respond to it. That being said, if the community or ArbCom wants to scrutinize my involvement here, I can answer your questions. MarioGom (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The only potentially-actionable allegation actually raised here concerns Mhhossein's activity on Commons, which is not within our jurisdiction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically someone being an Iranian government agent without identifying that would be an undisclosed paid editor, if there's evidence of that(not saying there is here). 331dot (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@182Line: Didn't you try this shit last year? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

A modest proposal: Given that there appears to currently be no policy regarding 'promoting government POVs' on Wikipedia, perhaps 182Line (or the non-sock account behind them) should propose such a policy, complete with a provisional list of governments whose POVs are to be prohibited. I'm sure such a policy would be non-contentious, and easy to apply... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Some would put the US on such a list, given the naming dispute with the Gulf. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I can collect more up-to-date evidence (including about MarioGom). 331dot, what I'm seeking is for administrators to take this seriously and investigate instead of dismissing or deflecting the issue. The editors in question are WP:GAMING Wikipedia's consensus-building policy, which is a serious core policy infringement. 182Line (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I was going to post the following when I e/c'd with your close. I wouldn't usually post after closing, but since you mention arbitration, I was going to say:
  This is ridiculous. The report is completely unsourced; linking to the opinions of journalists as to what they think is going on on Wikipedia is not the same as providing diffs to actual behavioral issues. 182Line has provided none. So, they are casting aspersions. With zero edits to article space ever, they are literally WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. As noted above, they pulled the the same stunt here last February, and if that wasn't enough, they followed up with a swiftly declined arbitration report the following month. How many bites of the cherry does this RGW-editor want? Or deserve? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• I was also about to say something about this. 182Line has around 30 edits, was registered in 2017, and their first edits in 2024 were to autocon-bust on their userpage and sandbox, after which they dove into trying to file an ArbCom case over this. 182Line is almost certainly a sleeper sock and, given their monomania for pushing this crap in a contentious topic, I'm advocating they be blocked - if not as a painfully obvious sleeper sock created only to pick fights, then as not here to build an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note Reopened per these comments. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I have just read the Bloomberg-article, and was seriously underwhelmed. (What is "online accounts used for deception, known as sock pockets", btw?) As for the much heralded Ashley Rindsberg Pirate Wires-article, "identifying" 40 "pro-Hamas" editors who have "Hijacked" wp (Yeah: I'm named as one): it just identifies editors with a interest in the same topics: I and Icewhiz socks have edited a zillion articles together ....strangely enough that isn't noted. Huldra (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  Icewhiz' biggest contribution to the encyclopedia is to ensure that editors perceive POVpushing in WP:ARBPIA as being a pro-Israel problem. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. User:182Line, if there are issues with content, the usual course is to edit and discuss that content, you have not done that. If there is problematic behaviour on en.wiki, you are expected to provide diffs, not send members of the community on a fishing expedition. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Malcolmxl5 If I take the time to prepare a report (something I've already offered to do here multiple times), will Wikipedia's administrators actually review the evidence, or will they just delete it and block my account like what happened last year at WP:ANI, Wikipedia:Arbitration, and seems to be happening again now? 182Line (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@182Line. Again, you do not produce diffs. You have also missed the bit about editing and discussing content to resolve issues with content. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Malcolmxl5 If you allow me the opportunity to submit diffs (that will be examined rather than deleted), then just say it and I'll take care of preparing them. 182Line (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been told, repeatedly, to supply diffs. Your answer, every time, is If I take the time... If you allow me the opportunity... etc. WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@182Line. You would have so much more credibility if we could see that you have tried to resolve issues through the normal course of editing. Perhaps you have done this with another account.

Let me try a different tack: the Times article makes reference to an activist named Vahid Beheshti, It is said that supporters "were repeatedly thwarted when they tried to set up a Wikipedia page". His wife said "four attempts were made to set up the page" and the "text was repeatedly removed". Putting aside the question of whether it is appropriate for supporters to create a page about Beheshti, can you point me to where this page was created four times and the text repeatedly removed? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Malcolmxl5, I'm starting get a sense that at least a couple of administrators might take the time to review the evidence, so will you please allow me a few days to prepare this properly giving it its due diligence? 182Line (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@182Line. Well, it seems you’ve dillydallied too long. As it happens, I see no evidence that there has been any attempt to create a page named Vahid Beheshti on en.wiki so the Times article is misleading in that respect. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinitely block 182Line

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.

---

Paging involved editors/participants in the above discussion: @MarioGom, Mhhossein, Ghazaalch, DoubleGrazing, Rosguill, and AndyTheGrump: Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed based on what I said above. This is an account clearly intended to pick fights. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

All I've done is share three news articles and offered to present evidence regarding the involved editors. For details about my account, refer to the previous WP:AE case: "You see, I can't help but think that if I were a member of the Iranian Wikipedia, and was effectively grassing up Iranian government officials, I would probably not use my home account either. See: WP:SECURESOCK. And this." 182Line (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The sockpuppet page you link to states further down "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying the Arbitration Committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny." Have you notified ArbCom? 331dot (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

331dot, will notifying ArbCom solve this and get administrators to address what is being said in those news articles? 182Line (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You're putting the cart before the horse. (acting prematurely) You're looking at being blocked as a sock unless you disclose your main account to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

All I'm doing is trying to provide evidence reiterated in three different news articles. If ArbCom is overseeing this matter, I can present all the information there. 182Line (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And you're doing so very unsubtly in a manner that suggests you have a dog in this fight and are doing this more to remove ideological opponents rather than for any concerns about the neutrality of Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I defended the principle of anonymity in the face of government oppression (and even noted that I was disinterested in the case itself). That does not actually mean one can justify everything else as a result. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@182Line: WP:PROJSOCK basically forbids what you're doing here as I'm doubtful that this is one of the limited circumstances [159] where it's allowed. Perhaps raising the issue one time just so other editors are aware of it would be acceptable, but definitely not pushing it and especially not without anyone knowing what your main account/s are and able to tell us if your in good standing and/or in disputes with the editors you're seeking action against. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support, per nom and also per my comment upstairs; would also support a site ban on the grounds of recidivism . Regardless of the (albeit likely) socking, they are only here to right perceived ideological wrongs, no interest in article improvement only in repeatedly filing the same unsourced aspersions at multiple venues, after being told in those same venues to let it go and refusing to do so. This amounts to a whole dose of WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support block and site ban per Jéské Couriano & Fortuna imperatrix mundi above. They done validated the impressions I had, and I agree with their solution. I also beleave a check user is needed per the discussion above. I'm getting a right great wrongs and bringing off wiki conflict into the encyclopedia impression.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Obviously per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Noting I have closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OutBuck without action on the sockpuppetry front, but with finding that It's obvious that 194, OutBuck, and 182Line either are the same person, or are working together, or some combination thereof. The lack of block is due to a lack of evidence of deliberate evasion of scrutiny, but should not be taken as an objection to blocking for any other reason. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Obviously not here to build articles. No more picking a fight please. It's over. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there is systemic POV-pushing in the topic area from anti-Israel accounts, but 182Line has provided no new evidence since the WP:AE thread or ArbCom case request nor is the evidence currently provided sufficient to implicate the mentioned users in that POV-pushing. Re: If I take the time to prepare a report (something I've already offered to do here multiple times), will Wikipedia's administrators actually review the evidence? You shot your shot and missed. Unless you have a ton of diffs showing disruptive behaviour and can clearly link it to violating policies, no. If you ever get unblocked, I recommend spending some time editing so you understand what constitutes a policy violation. Support site ban Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The policy infringement is WP:GAMING Wikipedia's consensus-building policy, and I provided evidence of this violation in the past report (which Wikipedia administrators declined to review). From what I can tell, the press are the only ones truly concerned about this issue (the same press that your own guidelines regard as reliable sources). 182Line (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I won't vote on this (I'm ambivalent towards the rationale for a ban), but I will note that a large, accidentally disclosed ring of accounts coordinating/sockpuppets to push a POV on this subject-- one that 182Line aligns with-- have been blocked/globally banned in recently (i.e. User:Alex-h, User:Stefka Bulgaria, User:ParadaJulio, User:TheDreamBoat, User:Fad Ariff, User:Iraniangal777, User:MA Javadi, User:Ypatch, User:SalmanZ, and User:Hogo-2020, who just got blocked etc). Whether or not 182 is a SPA, it fits within that group's M.O.; given their behavior, especially repeating claims Ma Javadi has made about MarioGom, I have little doubt it is related to the group. Some of their criticisms may have merit, but they are also an associate of a shady POV pushing ring that would like to whitewash things in the opposite direction. I think that's a stronger reason to block, but whatever... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The argument I made regarding MarioGom derives from diffs, whereas your speculative notions about me do not. If Wikipedia's administrators believe the press's concerns about WP:GAMING have "merit" but still respond with a "whatever" attitude, it's clear that there are major flaws with the current processes and procedures here. 182Line (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• CBAN. WP:NOTHERE. Obviously. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

IBAN - Just stop the interaction between the users and monitor his activity. If he stays out of trouble then he can be free. DotesConks (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Given Moneytrees' comment above, an Iban wouldn't much work (and even if it would, sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry autoprecludes one for the most part.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:36, 12 March 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 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.

Does a sock-block on Commons (or other projects) result in a sock-block on enwiki?

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 all,

Thanks to a series of events last night, enwiki user Rickard Elofsson was blocked on Commons for sockpuppetry, having used six sock accounts in order to re-upload copyvio images that had previously been deleted from Commons. These accounts' usernames partly impersonated the actual photographers of these pictures to get around permission requirements, with the sockmaster pretending to be the original photographers and give the impression they'd signed off on the publication of their work.

My question is - can/does this result in a sock block on enwiki? Or is it limited only to Commons, given that's where the sockpuppeteering occurred? The Kip ^(contribs) 18:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated slop related to Commons not here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear The Kip, I hope you’re doing well. I am deeply concerned about what has happened to my Wikimedia account, as my sole intention has always been to contribute positively to the platform. I am passionate about sharing valuable content and doing so in the right way. I sincerely hope the person reviewing this message will take the time to consider my explanation below: I have a strong interest in Swedish hockey talents and have recently been following Kevin Marx Norén’s journey. His story is both inspiring and unique, and I wanted to contribute by sharing it with young athletes and aspiring hockey players in Sweden. To illustrate his journey, I uploaded various images that were relevant to his story. I ensured that all images were uploaded under the correct licenses and properly credited to the respective authors. However, when I contacted some of these authors to guide them through the email confirmation process, most found it difficult to complete. In those cases, I obtained their verbal permission to submit the confirmation request on their behalf, using the emails they provided and approved. Despite my efforts to follow the correct process, I was surprised to see that all the media files were suddenly deleted. If my approach was incorrect, I sincerely apologize. It was never my intention to violate any rules. Additionally, I sought the help of Drew, Robin, Mikaela, Cara, and Erik, who all wanted to contribute their photos to support Marx Norén’s story. With their permission, I assisted them in creating accounts and uploading their images. They genuinely wanted their work to be part of this project, and I was simply trying to facilitate that. this is one example of the messages between me and Cara Kamps: file:///Users/kevinmarx88/Downloads/ScreenRecording_03-13-2025%2005-48-29_1.MP4 I deeply regret any misunderstanding or procedural mistakes I may have made. I assure you that I meant no harm, and I am more than willing to clarify everything via phone or email. My goal has always been to contribute positively to Wikimedia and to support the journey of ice hockey athletes. I would truly appreciate the opportunity to resolve this and continue being an active contributor to the platform. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rickard Elofsson Rickard Elofsson (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC) @Rickard Elofsson: If your name is Rickard Elofsson, and you are not Kevin Marx Norén, why is the non-functioning file link you gave stored under the username kevinmarx88? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Yes, indeed I asked Kevin Marx Noren to send me the file of him reaching out to his photographer and he sent me this link. oh, yes this link does not work, when I embed it into my search field. I think he must have given me a file that is only locally available to him. I will ensure I provide the right screen recording of him talking to his photographers for proper wikimedia usage. I will need to mail him again. Rickard Elofsson (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC) GPTZero says that the above post is 100% AI-generated. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip: To answer your question: no. Although if they're blocked over three projects, they can be globally banned. And that was a non-AI generated answer too  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Global locks and bans are different things; in this case they would be locked. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:13, 13 March 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.

Where could I go with my 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 understand that I can't do a Global Rename Request or a vanish because I would need my account to be unblocked to do that. I submitted an unblock request but was declined. I understand that it's best for my account to be retired and not to use it ever again. However, the trouble I have with my account is that it can be seen as the first thing on search engines. I simply request for a way for my account not to be seen so publicly on the search engine. Is there a way to do this? Trainrobber66 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No, and I honestly don't think you'll have to worry too much about people searching for "Trainrobber66". If you want to vanish, vanish. Scramble your password and walk away from Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, I best leave it here. Trainrobber66 (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

You are blocked from article space only. Secretlondon (talk) 09:16, 13 March 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.

Iban 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.

---

ANI, AN, AN first appeal for persual. I have learned how to behave at noticeboards. I will not attack the other editor again, nor will I go on and on about how I was attacked and bullied. I will not speak of the other editor or discuss him, just like I do with any other editor.

If this appeal is declined, I would request that it be properly placed instead of the haphazard manner it has been placed now; edit the closing statement of the ANI thread to show that I deserve the Iban and not that I placed it upon myself, or unarchive and open it. Then decline this request to show that the iban is actually community imposed wisdom, instead of one person's folly. Thank you for the consideration. DWF91 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have not informed any editors, as this appeal is only about my actions and not anyone else's. Hope that's okay. DWF91 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Indef block as constant time-waster who has violated their interaction ban today. Here their edit summary is "Bold choice to revert with "unexplained removal" instead of trying to understand when even doing this much would be claimed as an iban violation", which is a direct reference to the previous edit by User:Alex 21 (their edit summary was "Unexplained mass removals"). Fram (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  That is not an iban violation- WP:IBAN says I have to tell in the edit summary when I make edits that look like iban violations but for some reason might not be. Should I have just let the TFL submission which only I cared about remain broken?

  Why call me a time-waster instead of checking why I didn't mention a kind of interaction I had with the other editor today. Isn't that a WP:personal attack by not WP:Assuming Good Faith. DWF91 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  You are directly adressing the edit by the editor you have an Iban with, calling his edit a "Bold choice to revert with "unexplained removal"". Why not mentioning this interaction in your Iban appeal would somehow be a thing in your favour escapes me. You were blocked 4-11 March for violating the interaction ban, which you also failed to note in your appeal here. Fram (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm mentioning the edit, hence the explanation for why I did it, as mentioned in WP:Iban. It is a bold choice though? Bold is a neutral adjective, wouldn't "you shouldn't have" be considered worse? I didn't mention it bcs that it's not an iban violation? I linked the discussion, at the top which mentions I was blocked in it's closing statement. I was told to be minimal at ANI, and use diffs and links more. DWF91 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, even if your edit might have been correct, that doesn't automatically make it good. WP:IBAN points to the two exceptions being [r]everting obvious vandalism and [e]ngaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, which your edit wasn't.

  I genuinely suggest you to drop the stick, move away from that situation, and wait some time (at least several months, not days) before appealing again. This appeal is not really helpful in your current situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, but I still don't like being called a "constant time waster" in an edit summary called "indef block time"(tone is hard to know over the internet, but that seems jubilant). It's assuming bad faith for no reason. DWF91 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Fram being quite often very blunt doesn't excuse the fact that you're, clearly, not helping your own case by trying to justify your iban violation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was mistaken on considering it being listed as TFL as being vandalism enough, I have said okay, I understand now. He called me a time waster before all of this happened. DWF91 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  First discussion 6-7 February, second discussion 8 February, third discussion 3-4 March, block 4-11 March (plus 2 unblock requests), fourth discussion 13 March. You may not like being called a constant time waster, but how do you think this looks? Fram (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I closed the first one myself bcs it was going nowhere. I didn't start the second one. The third discussion was only on 4 march. I asked for unblock the first time bcs the blocking statement was incorrectly phrased- I misunderstood it.

  They have all been short discussions too if that's something that can be said, unlike most unblock/appeal requests that most have, which you might be kinda familiar with from seeing many unblocks as an admin, some of them even your own unblocks. DWF91 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I can already tell this discussion isn't going anywhere. Please, stop digging. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, as you say, bcs you are the only one here who assumed good faith. DWF91 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  As a banned user, if you think your editing is exempted from the ban according to these rules, this is what wp:iban says. Someone adding that it had run as TFL looked like semi-obvious violation in addition to there being no avenue for said edit to be asked without mentioning the prev edit(something that was considered an iban violation by an admin before), meant that I changed it myself, as it seemed like the only way to not break the iban.

  This is partially the reason I ask for the iban to be removed- I was trying to fix it for a related page, and this stuff happens in wp:drwho a lot of times, so I can't edit with the editing restrictions (I didn't know they would be interpreted so harshly, the wording seems much more lenient on wp:iban). (I have not seen the most recent edit, so consider this an edit conflict).DWF91 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Good lord. You privately contacted me three days ago, unsolicited, to ask about the details of the IBAN policy generally. I responded saying You are way, way closer to the line than you should be if you want to stay out of trouble. Just avoid the other user, period—regardless of how the IBAN policy is worded., which you agreed with. And three days later you're editing the same page as the person you're IBANned from, referencing their edits in your edit summary.

  You have exhausted the patience of multiple people across multiple venues by ignoring the one piece of advice they have given you: walk away. What are we supposed to do? You've already been sanctioned. If you can't abide by the restriction, the only option left is an indef. Giraffer (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I walked away, I didn't choose an article he was editing on. And I dm'd you unsolicited, bcs I needed an informal and involved admin opinion, and you were the newest admin. I apologise for the unsolicited dm. DWF91 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  You edited the same page as them, 43 minutes after they edited it, referencing their edit summary [160]. Giraffer (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block as per Fram, plus limit interaction ban appeals to no more frequently than once every six months. --Yamla (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• God damn it. You've been begged to drop the stick but you just keep swinging it with an iron grip. I still think you're a good editor outside of this, but if anyone wants to go forward with a block, which is what some are suggesting and I can't even argue against, I think it might be better to be for a month or three months instead of an indef. It's a shame this has gone this way given the good trajectory you were on and the good you were doing DWF. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'd support a shorter block, though I prefer indefinite at this point. I think it has to come with a restriction on how often the interaction ban can be appealed, though. --Yamla (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I did drop the stick. I only appealed bcs I now understand how to remain calm while at noticeboards or discussions. DWF91 (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  You may understand it, but it hasn't been demonstrated that you do. Having patience and the ability to reign one's self in is important, and it, as well as growth, need to be demonstrated in order to justify the lifting of an iban or topic can. Even if you have grown in this short of a time and can be better it hasn't yet been enough time to demonstrate such. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  You haven't dropped the stick. You're swinging the stick right now. -- asilvering (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• No comment on the block or length thereof, but support restriction on interaction ban appeals. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for the newer two replies. I will not reply now no matter what is said. Thank you for more or less being the only helpful voice here. DWF91 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support IBAN with no comment on block for now. DWF, you've been given far more leniency in this matter than the average editor would receive, and many people have tried to support you on- and off-wiki, including myself. To put this into perspective, issues relating to this IBAN have taken place over a month and a half, during which time you have requested an IBAN, appealed the IBAN, violated the IBAN, and been blocked for violating the IBAN. Coming from the perspective of unblocks, the standard offer comes to mind: go six months without violating your IBAN to prove to the community that it is no longer necessary, then appeal again. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• DWF has shown they are a competent content creator who can, in most cases, work well with others, but has also shown that they cannot break away from their fixation on this user and this IBAN. They did not take my advice to drop the first IBAN appeal, and that led to me eventually blocking them for using that appeal as a venue to lob continued attacks at Alex. They did not take others' advice in that thread; nor in interactions on their talkpage after that; nor, I gather, in various off-wiki interactions; nor in this thread.
  However, the bulk of this has taken course over the span of two weeks. It seems like DWF is stuck in the moment. Usually, when someone is in that place, some time away clears their head. So I am going to suggest an unusual remedy here, one I haven't seen imposed in a few years but that remains within the community's powers: Support 6-month siteban. Hopefully, after 6 months, DWF will have moved past this moment and be able to focus on the content work they excel at. If not, then we will know that there is no point in humoring any more of this (on the short-to-medium timescale) and the next IBAN violation can result in an indef. I do hope it's the first outcome, though; if all goes well, we could review the IBAN 6-12 months after the siteban expires. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I would also support a 3-6 month siteban. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Support 3 to 6-month siteban without prejudice per @Tamzin - DWF is a good editor but is stuck in a monotropic loop over this issue. There's also been off-Wiki interactions that lead me to believe this. A siteban, as a form of an imposed Wikibreak, would I think help them clear their head and (hopefully) come back as a constructive editor. I would welcome them back when they're feeling better. qcne (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Support 3-6 month siteban. Earlier, I had planned to return to this thread to suggest exactly this; I'm glad Tamzin beat me to it. (I didn't realize it was such an unusual remedy. Never tell me the odds, etc.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support block/SBan per Fram. And per nom, who has supposedly retired anyway. An appeal request like this—"show that the iban is actually community imposed wisdom, instead of one person's folly", what? Is this saying that the iban was the result of one admin's foolishness?— to request the lifting of an iban that they breached and came off a one week block only two days ago?! And then arguing the toss about whether reverting an editor with whom you have an iban with is actually a breach of the iban? Very difficult to take this seriously. Tamzin demonstrated their precog a few days ago: Multiple admins ... have bent over backwards to avoid blocking you, and nonetheless you continue to violate your IBAN rather sums up both where we are and how we got here. Sit down and come back in six months, min. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• 6-month-block, perhaps plus a restriction on making the next IBAN appeal no soner than march 2026. Its clear that OP needs a break, in order to focus on something else. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support site block instead of retiring as they have repeatedly announced, DWF continues to be a time sink so it's unfortunately time to enforce the retirement with a block. In last week's declined unblocks (caveat, one was me: repeated wikilawyering despite insisting they weren't doing that very thing, incessantly re-litigating this IBAN (continued here). This will allow DWF the chance to show a positive history elsewhere. They can be a productive editor when they close, but have spiraled since the initial edits that led to the IBan. They should be eligible for the Standard Offer if they show that history Star Mississippi 22:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• If you had clearly articulated the other editor's conduct and cooly responded to the participants, it would have been a 2-way. His conduct stopped mattering when the IBAN came into effect. It sunk to the bottom of the Atlantic when you were blocked. The tone of this appeal and your responses spell out that you don't want community understanding. You want to fight. You want to win. Wikipedia isn't about fighting or winning, so you lost. So did anyone who tried to help you.

A temporary block with an IBAN-appeal restriction upon return is cruel and unusual punishment, but DoctorWhoFan91 has picked a hill to die on. An appetite for conflict drove them to withdraw their good-topic candidate, then make sure people saw it. The other editor reverted it, and DWF91 broke the IBAN by reverting them for the (being generous) 4th time. The subsequent post on the Talk was transparently disruptive; I presume “I was bullied” breaks the IBAN a 5th time. If I weren’t on holiday, I still wouldn’t volunteer the time to check anymore. I previously advised on successfully appealing and yesterday said he’d be blocked for bringing this back to AN. Per Star Mississippi, Support indef eligible for SO. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef per SM, IT and others. I get the idea behind a temporary (6-month) ban, but personally have never been a fan of such bans, not least as assuming that the problematic behaviour or its causes would disappear in such a time may not be wholly justifiable. Better to have an indef ban that can be lifted by the community whenever it sees fit, IMO. JavaHurricane 10:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban, per Tamzin. JayCubby 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• I have blocked DoctorWhoFan91 sitewide for six months. They have been wasting the time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. They have refused to drop the stick, despite several other editors imploring them to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 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 closure review request at Talk:Kash_Patel#RfC: Whether to call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence

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.

---

(RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Posted at 02:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Notified: User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

Reasoning: The RFC was closed a week early despite votes still coming in, as acknowledged in the close discussion. I'm counting by rough math at least 5 to 1 for oppose vs. support, but saw that it closed with no consensus. Would like to confirm math behind discarding the votes like that.

Closer (Kash Patel RfC)

I'm not even reading the justification for the close, editors simply shouldn't close contentious RfC's early -> who gets to decide what is "too soon?" There is an informal rule of thumb saying you generally shouldn't do that before 7 days have passed, but here we have 19 days. There is nothing wrong with letting discussions go even for two months, but this is really becoming a big timesink, the returns are diminishing and I think that we should just move on. The result is very unlikely to have changed within that week or so. If there is any problem with the merits, I'm ready to address it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Springee It doesn't say that. The page about requests for comment says this:

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

Emphasis mine.

There definitely is more than enough comment at this stage to make a proper determination. 30 days is an arbitrary threshold that Legobot uses to sort discussions which should be stale/mature from all other discussions. It doesn't mean that a 30-day old discussion is stale or mature, or that a discussion younger than 30 days is not ripe for closure. RfCs can last for 10 days or 60 days, but what matters is the amount of comment. My determination is that running it further is going to be a waste of editors' resources that could have been more productively spent on editing or creating articles. And anyway, we don't have to stick rigidly to most rules; with the exception of some basic non-negotiable principles.

I invite any parties that believe that there are some arguments that haven't been mentioned yet but should be to reach out to me or here. I said just that in the closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Dw31415, the "KO" comment was just an analogy. It was not meant to make you fight and stand your ground till the bitter end (in fact, you shouldn't - if you feel that "my cause lost and I shall make sure it is victorious at the end of the day", you should seriously reconsider if editing Wikipedia is appropriate for you). What I only meant is to clarify that consensus means "fairly obvious the proposal is rejected/confirmed", and that's not how I saw the discussion unrolling, after making corrections for apparent efforts to manipulate the decision-building process - just like it's normally obvious that a person who delivered a knock-out won, but when the boxers stay for full 12 rounds, it is often not that clear who won. Also, as stated in the closure and as I clarified on my talk page, in articles about living people, only content for which there is consensus can stay, and anything short of that mandates removal. The only practical difference is that relitigating the issue without substantial new information may be considered more disruptive/more often considered disruptive if there was consensus against the proposal - complaining about time sinks, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and all that. However, consensus can change, so even a "consensus against" outcome, which is not applicable here, does not prohibit you from trying to advance new arguments that may reasonably change other people's minds. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Good day, @Szmenderowiecki, I'm replying to clarify my position, not to request a reply or action on your part. In the RfC, I oppose the inclusion of "conspiracy theorist", so I'm not seeking to overturn the result. I understood your KO analogy (and even enjoyed the quality of the writing), but I don't think it's helpful since the closing text can lean on Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:BLPRESTORE without a bloody analogy. If it were just the two of us, I'd offer a specific edit to improve the closure statement and leave it to you to decide. I think the key questions for an admin to review are (and why more than a single "horse" is on the track):

1. Whether and how to address that "conspiracy theorist" remained in the opening during the RfC, but BLP Restore indicates that it shouldn't. Maybe a process note could be added to the closure. Assuming there was an edit war about it, what venue was appropriate to resolve that while the RfC carried on?
2. Whether the degree of bludgeoning in the discussion (or other factors) warrant reopening to avoid the appearance of a rush to judgement.
3. Whether skipping the Wikipedia:Closure requests step is permissible or wise. (I think it was skipped, but please correct me if I'm wrong).

I share the sentiment that you clearly did a lot of good work in writing the closing and I appreciate it. Dw31415 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Kash Patel RfC)

Reopen - Again, RFC should be open for a full month. In other words, one more week. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Reopen I'm not even reading the justification for the close, editors simply shouldn't close contentious RfC's early. Looking at the list of replies this clearly isn't a SNOW case and given the dispute this is a contentious topic. Closing the RfC early is something that should not be done absent a SNOW case, even if the final close is identical to the close in question. In the event of a SNOW closing, if someone protests the SNOW closing, it's not a SNOW closing. There is no harm in letting the process (and timer) play out. Note my comments here do not otherwise reflect on the quality of the close, only the premature closure. Springee (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, in response to your question, the standard RfC period is 1 month. I see no benefit to closing early and certainly drawbacks such as editors being unhappy about the early close. If the RfC is closed early participants may feel "their side" didn't get the chance for all their views to be presented. Net result is discontent. Early closes can also look like a type of gaming the system because, at least sometimes, they are. I don't mean you had any ill intent. However, delaying until the RfC has run avoids event the appearance that a RfC might have been closed early for strategic reasons which would again result is discontent. Springee (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, there was an initial closure by the opener of the RfC, plainly against policy! So many reasons to let this one run its course, in my opinion. Carlp941 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Is 30 days an unwritten norm? I’m new to this. Dw31415 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

not strictly a rule, but from WP:RFCEND

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

IMO, if those involved with the discussion still have plenty to say and believe a consensus can be reached, 30 days is appropriate. Carlp941 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd be right there with you if there was evidence that those involved with the discussion still have plenty to say, but I just double checked @Szmenderowiecki's talk page and I don't see any Support editors claiming their arguments were not accounted for. My read of the Support opinions is that they were willing to accept treatment short of conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. The objection to closure seems to be a process related objection. I expect that the closer would be open to adjusting their closure statement upon request. There is a lot to find fault with in this RfC and I hope the community can learn from this one. The narrow question of this RfC and a finding of "no consensus" means there's plenty of room for further discussion in a new, broader topic or RfC. Also, I hope that a fresh discussion, in the absence of a good faith BLP/NPOV challenge of the current content (and absence of IP quipping) might yield more productive results. Thank you so much for listening to my thoughts on the matter. Dw31415 (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps either the Duration section or the Reasons and ways to end RfCs section at WP:RFC needs a slight rewrite then. As it is written, it seems to me that it is acceptable to close an RfC early when it is guaranteed that there will not be a consensus by the reading of WP:RFC. When what is written is out of alignment with practice, it is likely best to attempt to have the written portion be re-aligned. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this take. It does not seem to me like Szmenderowiecki's closure runs afoul of the "norms" as currently written on that page. And, if the standard RfC period is 1 month, and anything else, especially a shorter duration in a contentious discussion, is viewed as a generally unacceptable duration, then that needs to be made clear to editors. NewBorders (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that further revision of the RfC page would be helpful and I’m happy to participate in that after this RfC is resolved. Specific questions (for later consideration):

1. Can an “uninvolved editor” of any experience or role judge that the discussion has run it’s course?
2. Can a single editor determine the consensus of 50 other editors?
3. Does the content in question remain frozen during the RfC period?
4. Is it helpful to the community to have an RfC narrowly defined to two words in a single sentence?
5. Do issues with NPOV have a different consensus threshold (aka a Knockout threshold as used in this closure)?

Note: I previously requested closure within the RfC discussion, but hope this is the right spot for my comment. I look forward to the admin’s decision and really appreciate your work. Dw31415 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Reopen let it run its course completely. I would add that "no consensus" definitely doesn't seem to fit the discussion. I would !vote to overturn "no consensus" to a very clear oppose. Buffs (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Kash Patel RfC)

• Endorse Closure I wish the RfC demonstrated a clear consensus to include this information in the first sentence of the lede - but there was no consensus coming out of that discussion and another week isn't likely to change that. I don't see any reason to keep the RfC going for another week when the end result - a maintenance of article status quo - will be the result. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC) I've been taking in some of the arguments from the people advocating to re-open the RfC. I had assumed a status-quo would be effectively the same as an oppose consensus - with the language being in the third para of the lede rather than the first. While I'd supported first para in the RfC I didn't see it as being particularly high-stakes and so didn't want to be seen as trying to fight past a consensus against movement. If, however, status quo is to restore the language to the first para then, considering the numerical balance, it is more important that a closer be very careful to assess the weight of arguments accordingly. A !vote is not a numbers game but those arguments that were made should be shown to have been seen. As such I'm changing my !vote here to reopen not on the basis of the time the RfC was open for (which I think is a non-issue) so much as on the basis of the lack of sufficient adjudication of arguments in the closure notice. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Tank you for these comments and clear rationale. Your comments get to the heart of the ambiguity. What should the state of the first sentence be during the RfC and what does a result of “no consensus” mean for the sentence? ScottishFinnishRadish says that BLPRESTORE applies. I think @Bluethricecreamman‘s criticism of the closing has some merits. I’d prefer that the closing statement lean more heavily on BLPRESTORE than establishing a new “KO” threshold. @Szmenderowiecki, are you open to modifying the closure statement? Dw31415 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure per the closure's reasoning, where their argument quotes from the RfC information article, which says: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.

At this point, with everyone in the RfC repeating the same arguments and nobody changing their mind, it's clear that 1) we have reached a consensus and 2) keeping the discussion open will only be a timesink for everyone and not benefit the discussion in any way. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand that thinking but what if more editors join? If say 20 more editors join all on one side of the debate vs the other does that change things. I do get that such a question could be asked the day after a 1 month close. I have seen cases where a later argument was put forth and editor after that point were clearly swayed. I'm such cases it's useful to let things play out. Springee (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The close was no consensus, despite there being at least 5x as many opposes as supports. even assuming that as it currently stands, 4/5ths of the oppose votes had to be discarded, and none of the supports, the continuing trickling in of oppose votes could easily have changed no-consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be the same outcome though. My understanding was that the status quo was that the text was in the third para rather than the first. A no consensus close enforces the status quo which is the same result as a successful oppose !vote. As such, even if 100% of oppose !votes were considered the end result would have been the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

not quite.

• its easier to point to "consensus was oppose" if someone were to try to start an rfc in future. if there was no consensus, bit harder to argue the matter settled.
• i don't see summarization of some arguments. for example many of the oppose votes agree on inclusion of info about kash patel as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede, just not in first sentence or even first paragraph.
• the current close is transparently a WP:SUPERVOTE.

• the first 2.5 paragraphs are closers own thoughts.
• closer summarizes the responses in the next 1.5 paragraphs, but includes significant synthesis and commentary from closer.
• final paragraph is just asking community to bring more evidence to discussion in future. quite literally wasting more time.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

My recollection is that “conspiracy theorist” was in the first sentence when the RfC was started. As I recall, @Wikieditor662 started the RfC with the intent to remove it. A previous discussion topic was unable to resolve the question. That discussion dates from Dec 1[161]. In my opinion, there is some harm to Wikipedia’s NPOV if the RfC is reopened and “theorist” is restored to the first sentence while another 8 days pass. Dw31415 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Content that has been subject to a good faith BLP objection cannot be restored without consensus to include it. See WP:BLPRESTORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. In retrospect, it would have made for a calmer discussion if “theorist” were removed at the start of the RfC. Even better if a proponent of “theorist” was the one to open it. Maybe the RfC description could give better guidance on inclusion of contentious content having the burden of consensus. Dw31415 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You said: If say 20 more editors join all on one side of the debate vs the other does that change things.

That's theoretically possible, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, and WP:SNOW states If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, for Wikieditor662's very correct reasoning. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse re-open, but requesting admin clarity on... everything The closure's reasoning falls outside Wikipedia policy. If "Both arguments are strong and valid so I can't declare a KO for either "team"." is true, then wouldn't that support going back to previous consensus? The closure is saying that neither side won a "KO" (a poor framing for any content dispute), but they are taking the side of Oppose. We can't have it both ways. To me that reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Frankly, this RfC process has been a disaster. I think it was poorly formed to start with, then it was closed by the editor who made it, then it was closed with an unclear, contentious outcome. Unfortunately I think any result will be fruit of the poisonous tree. Carlp941 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Carlp941: the "previous consensus" didn't exist, since the terms were added without consensus about a month ago, which is why we opened an RfC; therefore, the terms should have been removed anyway. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BLP is clear that consensus is required to include contentious BLP material. No consensus defaults to removal in BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: exactly what I wrote in my comment, but you've explained it more accurately and concisely. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  hmmmm. seems reasonable to me. thanks for the clarification. I wish the closure didn't bury that under several paragraphs of text. Carlp941 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and the article includes multiple mentions, with well sourced citations, about Kash Patel promoting various conspiracy theories.

  From my understanding of the RFC, the main issue was WP:DUEness around where that information belongs in the lede, or if it even belongs in lede. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've been informed by @JacktheBrown of the BLP policy that is underdiscussed in the closure reasoning. In line with BLP, I believe the contentious material should not be restored under any outcome here.

  This RfC was initially prematurely closed in clear violation of policy, and that puts a bad stink on the process. A bunch of unsigned IPs and editors who made accounts just to skew discussion puts more stink on the process, and it makes me think WP:SNOWBALL doesn't apply here. I do think it will lower tensions to let it run a little longer. Carlp941 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: After taking some time to review Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:RfC, I initially concluded that this RfC should remain closed and the current state of the introduction should be considered the current consensus. I’ve modified my position. Given (a) the heavy bludgeoning in the initial period of the RfC, especially by IP editors, and (b) the closer’s apparent unwillingness to improve the closure statement based on the discussion here, I could see the benefit in reopening. In any reopening, the admin should note that “conspiracy theorist” should remain absent the first sentence per BLPRESTORE. (My deleted, but now restored with strikethrough follows)
  Endorse Closure: After taking some time to review Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:RfC, I conclude that this RfC should remain closed and the current state of the introduction should be considered the current consensus. Editors wanting to treat the subject’s support of conspiracy theories more prominently in the introduction should start fresh with a bold edit and proceed afresh through the consensus building process. The bold edit should not include “conspiracy theorist” in the first sentence because there is clearly not consensus support for it.
  Rationale: Individual administrators should not be asked to adjudicate fine grained content assessments. The closer followed documented rationale for closing an RfC and the RfC process does not define 30 days as a default period, rather An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. For editors that object to the summary of the closer and want to establish for the record a different summary, perhaps they could document their assessment of the consensus in a new talk section (such as RfC - Other summaries).
  Personal note: While I’m a 19 year editor of Wikipedia, this is the first RfC that I’ve participated in. My above proposal reflects how I’d like to see this process work than any longstanding norms than I’ve observed.
  Edited per request Dw31415 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Dw31415, please do not delete content from a discussion, instead "strike" your comments that no longer represent your perspective. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Will do. Thanks. Dw31415 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Kash Patel RfC)

would like an admin review at this point. appreciate the work done by original closer, regardless. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

If the review results in a reopen, I request the admin please make clear that “conspiracy theorist” should not be added back to the first sentence during the remaining RfC period (provided that the admin agrees with @ScottishFinnishRadish’s comments here about BLPRESTORE). I say that because some editors involved have already expressed a strong expectation that “conspiracy theorist” remains until after the RfC closes. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello admins! Please address this request or openly decline to address (in the spirit of Wikipedia:DONTPOSTPONE. I think there’s not a lot of policy guidance to make clear how you should address this. If that’s your reluctance to take this up it would be helpful to know that and we could address some of the RfC questions that this (and similar requests) have raised in a separate forum. Thanks!!! Dw31415 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

unarchived this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

friendly clarification Dw31415 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you mean conspiracy theorist, or just theorist? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC) Edited above. Thanks. Dw31415 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Software question: I'm trying to understand why this edit[162] to my comment also resulted in the "user requesting review" to change to my name (scroll down to the actual text to see the change). The edit diff doesn't show a change but in the previous and next edit the requestor is Tule-hog. In that one edit it shows me as the requestor. Springee (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It must be a bug with Template:RfC closure review. I thought it worked OK Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears to show the last editor as the requestor (you are it until I hit reply). Perhaps the original requestor, Bluethricecreamman, is OK with manually inserting their name? Springee (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I will do that manually, since they are the ones who requested review. I'm not sure how to fix it though, as I thought that substing {{REVISIONUSER2}} should have done the job. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

As a procedural note, some participants have !voted as non-participants. This is a minor process thing but, in a review largely about process, it would probably be wise for the participants to move their !vote comments to the "participant" section. I'm getting lonely there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. To my recollection @User:Super Goku V was a non-participant. My comment builds on theirs so I’d like to keep it were it is (it’s also a comment, not a !vote). Dw31415 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I just meant the !votes. I have a threaded comment up there too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. I came across the RfC when I saw this closure review, though I don't plan on participating if the RfC ends up reopened. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

What makes someone a participant? Is it someone who voted in the RfC, someone who started the RfC, or only those who closed the RfC and challenged the closure? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes if you !voted in the RfC then you're a participant. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I moved my vote from the non participant to participant section. Thank you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I don't have to feel so lonely. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 26 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.

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Master Jay

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Master Jay for Master Jay to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

(I didn't start this one, just doing the paperwork)GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Jellysandwich0

• Jellysandwich0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To Whom It May Concern, Jellysandwich0 has repeatedly used the edit summary "poorly written", which is an insulting and disparaging edit summary, see here: [163], [164], and [165]. I have asked for Jellysandwich0 to stop, and to be fair my request seems to had some impact. But on the other hand, I received this reply, whereJellysandwich0 doubled down on the use of the "poorly written", see here [166]. For the benefit of other editors, I will reproduce it below: '

"I deleted your most recent contribution because you restored the two poorly written sentences without improving them. When editing, please examine your edit before submitting it and please do not resubmit poorly written material after it has been removed. Obvious flaws include:

"decided to sent": The verb is incorrectly conjugated.

"clashed": The word is misused. Do you know what it means?

"spread too thin": There is an adjective where an adverb belongs.

"was not gave": The verb is incorrectly conjugated.

In addition to the quality-of-writing issues, you sometimes stray from the subject and discuss the war. Focus on Dušan Simović instead. Please improve your writing. Thank you."

First thing, that line ""clashed": The word is misused. Do you know what it means?" is very insulting as the clear implication here is that I am very stupid and do not know what the word "clashed" means. I do suffer from learning disabilities very sadly and sometimes I do make mistakes, but I always correct them with time. I do think this editor has sufficient tact to deal with other editors. The judgmental, patronizing tone is not helpful towards the collaborative atmosphere towards improving the encyclopedia. More to the point is that Jellysandwich0 has repeatedly deleted two properly sourced sentences of information: [167], [168], [169], and [170]. The reason given by Jellysandwich0 is quality-of-writing. First thing, I should be having to waste so much time on just including two sentences. Second, if the quality is that problematic, why can't Jellysandwich0 just rewrite those sentences in a manner that pleases them instead of deleting them? This is especially the case as Jellywandwich0 takes such a patronizing and judgmental tone. Third and this the most important point is I am supposed to jump through hoops here to please Jellysandwich0. As stated, Jellysandwich0 says he going to keep these two sentences until they are written in a manner this editor find pleasing. This is not about improving the encyclopedia. This is about asserting dominance. There are many reasons why people want to edit, but I believe that asserting dominance is not one of them. I got one of the disputed sentences included yesterday, but the other one was deleted. This is wasting my time to say the least, especially when Jellysandwich0 rewrite the sentence that is pleasing to them instead of making jump through. This is someone who is not here to build encyclopedia, but rather who someone who is here to prove their superiority by making other editors jump through hoops to please them, which I believe is a textbook case of disruptive editing. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk)

Well, maybe Jellysandwich0 could have been more diplomatic, but I don't see how "poorly written" violates any policy, and it is simply true, as were the statements he made on your talk page. He is offering you advice, not successfully but he is offering it. I think you are misinterpreting giving help with your writing as asserting dominance. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I mostly agree that this is a pretty minor situation that ideally could've been handled elsewhere, but from their talk page, this isn't the first time that someone has asked that Jellysandwich0 stop saying things like "poorly written" or to be more polite when editing. In addition to the post from A.S. Brown, I'm seeing the same things being brought up 3 months ago, and 3 years ago, as well as a more detailed complaint about civility from 4 years ago and another one from 5 years ago. I'm not sure it's about dominance, but I do think there is a civility issue here that should be addressed. I glanced through their interactions with other users to try to see how much of an issue this was, and saw the edit summary "melodramatic writing" which seems to be their response to a dispute very much like this one.

Jellysandwich0, do you see why people might view your edit summaries and comments as a bit rude or aggressive? Could you commit to being more polite? I think you'd find your interactions with other editors to be a lot more positive if you stop using edit summaries like "poorly written" and instead just said "grammar fixes" or something like that. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

My edits to Dušan Simović made from March 3 to March 12 corrected abnormally deficient editing by A.S. Brown. This included misspelling, poor grammar, the misuse of words, nonsensical writing, poor style, missing commas, restored poorly written edits, and the use of too many words to express simple things. But the problematic editing continued even after repeated corrections.

"grammar fixes" is too narrow to describe such a multi-faceted problem. "poorly written" is not too narrow and is appropriate for the size of the problem. I will consider a one or two-word substitute for "poorly written" that is at least as appropriate for the magnitude of the problem as "poorly written" is. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Jellysandwich0 While they should be brief, edit summaries definitely don't need to be one or two-words. You can review Help:Edit summary for more details. WP:SUMMARYNO might be particularly helpful. Summaries like "poorly written" are vague and (evidently) uncivil. "Grammar fixes" was just an example, but if you need another one, "improvements to prose" would cover the things you've listed.

Nil Einne brought up some good points below, I'd suggest responding to those as well. Deleting sourced content because of grammatical or spelling errors is not a good call. If the issue is that you don't know how to improve the sentences, you can tag it with the copy edit inline template CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel we're missing the forest from the trees here, which to be fair wasn't help by the OP's complaint. There might be legitimate questions about civility but I think we should concentrate on actions more than words. Does anyone really think our article was improved by repeatedly removing these just for being poorly written? [171] [172] [173] [174] These might not be perfect but if we fix what can be regarded as a simple and obvious typo from 'clashed' to 'crashed' they're IMO understandable enough that there is no reason to remove them. (I'm assuming there was no other reason for these removals since that's what the edit summaries seem to suggest.) I'd note especially that with the removal of the sentence on the plane crash etc, readers are left wonder WTF is Carton de Wiart who we suddenly randomly talk about being taken prisoner.

If Jellysandwich0 wants to improve them further and explain to A.S. Brown how they should be improved that's fine and we can discuss whether they're sufficiently civil in the way they approach A.S. Brown. But Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project which means if something isn't that well written but seem reasonable to include and is sourced, and is understandable enough the solution is to either improve it yourself or leave it be for someone else to. Sure when an editor is adding large paragraphs of extremely poorly written paragraphs to an article, then it might be reasonable to just remove it all and ask the editor to re-write it but I just don't see how that applies to these two removals. Jellysandwich0 has improved text as we can see in some of those diffs where they did improve the writing, so they really should get that.

It isn't one sided though, A.S. Brown also has a responsibility to try and improve their writing and avoid mistakes. Regardless of the poor way Jellysandwich0 approached this, at a bare a minimum A.S. Brown should have fixed the 'clashed' to 'crashed' rather that just continually reverting to re-include the sentence with it. If they know it's wrong, why keep trying to include text with it? If they don't have time to "waste so much time on just including two sentences" to do such basics, then they shouldn't be editing.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Discussion RfC Should "Far-right" be used in the infobox

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) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: 1

Reasoning: I request a review of this RfC at the Republican Party (United States) talk page. My reason is as follows: a number of arguments were made during the discussion, and Chetsford, as per their closure statement, determined that one argument from the exclude side was relevant: news sourcing are insufficient here, and academic sources are needed. They also determined that one argument from the include side was relevant: the level of academic sourcing is sufficient.

Chetsford concluded that there is no consensus to exclude or include the information, which resulted in exclusion by default (since that was the status quo). When I asked them for clarification regarding this, Chetsford stated that they disregarded the sourcing, and instead "divine[d] whether or not the community felt the sourcing was sufficient or insufficient" (as per this discussion on their talk page).

This line of reasoning fails to take strength of arguments into account: if editors demand a certain level of sourcing and the sourced are then provided, they have to make a case why the sources are still insufficient. Merely "feeling" that the sourcing is insufficient isn't a valid argument. Nine academic sources (not just the three mentioned in the closure statement) were brought up, which would provide a very high level of sourcing - higher than anything else in the entire article. Naturally, there is no specific hard number of sources that guarantees inclusion of information in an article. However, if the level of sourcing - the core of both the include and exclude arguments - is not taken into account, the closure boils down to vote counting. Cortador (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Republican "far-right" RfC)

The RfC ended with No Consensus (as opposed to consensus for Support, or consensus for Oppose). The opinion of the challenger here is that an RfC ending with a 50/50 split of "responsible Wikipedians" — with both sides making equally valid policy arguments — constitutes "as wide an agreement as can be reached" for Support. As I communicated to them, I reject the accuracy of that calculus.

• "Chetsford stated that they disregarded the sourcing" This is correct to the extent that I did not sit in singular judgment of the sources as this was not an evidentiary hearing and I am not a judge. It is not for a neutral closer to determine whether or not X# of sources meets an arbitrary threshold they independently determine. Rather, the closer's role is merely to evaluate the strength of policy-based arguments made by the editors as to why the sources are or are not of sufficient quality and quantity.
• "if the level of sourcing ... is not taken into account" No editor presented a policy-based argument in the RfC as to why X# of sources would vanquish the "overwhelming" criterion set by the Oppose side in their WP:YESPOV argument. This position of the Oppose camp was strengthened by three additional discussions from the summer of 2024 that were incorporated by reference and satisfactorily provided a superior quantity of sources that established an existing consensus that "academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism" (per Toa Nidhiki05).
  While there are many ways of establishing a sourcing threshold, the Support camp didn't try any of them and, apparently, were either relying on the closer to cogitate the arguments for them or were depending on me to arbitrarily decree 2, 20, or 200 sources was sufficient. And though Support failed to establish a threshold, the Oppose camp did -- that level which would overcome the conclusion of their incorporated discussions (as noted, they're not obligated to transcribe them into the RfC, and they can incorporate by reference). Indeed, not only did Support fail to set a threshold, they didn't even make an attempt to rebut or address the sources from the incorporated discussions. To my great surprise, they simply forfeited the entire question to Oppose.

After applying WP:DISCARD and de-weighting WP:VAGUEWAVEs, I determined that the two sides presented equally valid arguments (given the aforementioned forfeiture of Support to the most potent rebuttal of Oppose). In these cases WP:NHC directs that "if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". In this case, with both sides presenting roughly equally valid arguments rooted in policy and with an equal split of editors who supported and editors who opposed the proposition, WP:NOCON was the only possible result. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Republican "far-right" RfC)

• Overturn. There are enough WP:RS, both primary and secondary sources, that justify adding "Far-right" as a faction of the Republican party. Cortador linked many [175] [176] in addition to others [177] in the thread. The editors opposed to the change haven't argued why the many WP:RS should be ignored or provided WP:RS in rebuttal. Furthermore, Freedom caucus is listed as part of the Republican party in the infobox and they are considered far-right [178]. An editor mentioned the small size of the far-right faction[179] but I did not see an argument or discussion whether the faction is so small as to be irrelevant and therefore not subject to inclusion per Wikipedia policy. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• endorse close as this is an infobox entry that has to make a great reduction of context to come up with an entry. There was no agreement about this. Just because some sources exist is not sufficient reason. Absense of use on many other references s also important. But any way no agreement (not surprising) so that is a no consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was no clear overarching policy here - there was an editorial decision to be made (a la due weight) as to whether it should be in the infobox. And there was no consensus if the burden was met or not. Sources existing does not mean something is due weight for inclusion in the infobox. The only possible outcome of this RfC was no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that, whether coincidentally or not, a new-ish editor claiming to be an IP editor has purported to close a similar RfC on the same talk page (Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Should center-right be removed from the infobox? with an outcome of "overwhelming consensus to list the Republican Party as a far-right party in the infobox". I will assume this is merely a mistake in thinking that consensus can override the clear no-consensus here, but I cannot help but think that second RfC was started because someone observed this RfC under question not going their way, so they were trying to shoehorn their desired POV into the article through another RfC. Ultimately, that second RfC should never have been started while this one was going on since the questions were so similar... but at this point, it's a huge mess. So while I stand by endorsing this closure, it may very well be better to simply "relist" it as a brand new RfC, from scratch, asking editors what term (or terms) the party should be described as in the infobox, if at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. I would have closed the same way, and I see the opposing view as untenable.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, noting that Chetsford explicitly did not find consensus in either direction, leaving open the possibility of continued discussion. Many arguments in that RfC are poor, with little or no reference to Wikipedia's policies, and this was not restricted to only one side of the argument. Applying fairly strict weighting I see more policy-based support for inclusion than exclusion, but not necessarily enough to call a consensus. If the RfC had been framed well it could possibly have resulted in a more nuanced outcome such as including "far-right" under positions, which had a little more support - but these options didn't receive enough attention. The RfC was also marked by some bludgeoning, particularly from the "oppose" side, but that's a behavioral issue that needs to be handled separately. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close, as the arguments put forward by Springee, Nemov et al. Halbared (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close, per Graeme Bartlett, berchanhimez, S Marshall, and Vanamonde93. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak overturn. I could see this being NC, but given the closer's stated reliance on Toa's "evidence from past discussions" that, per @Aquillion, not only appears to be very weak/misrepresented but was part of a behavioral issue that got Toa TBANNED from this topic, I think a reassessment of consensus would be warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close The close is within the discretion of the closer and per

S Marshall, and Vanamonde93.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn. The side in favor of inclusion cited several reliable sources, including academic ones, showing that a faction of the Republican Party (the Freedom Caucus) is regularly described as far right, making its inclusion under faction ideologies due. Not one oppose explained why those sources were insufficient or pointed toward contrary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Close This shouldn't even be a point of consideration. Their candidate won a majority of the votes in addition to the electoral college for the Presidency and hold a majority in both houses of Congress. While a small minority could be considered "far right", at this time, the party dominated by centrists and pragmatic right of center delegates. In addition, I see nothing in the notes of this closure nor the discussion which would sway me to consider that the closure of consensus (regardless of my personal opinions) was anything other than "no consensus" and status quo should remain as-is. Most if what I'm seeing here is wishcasting and vilification. Changing it now would only serve to bolster such actions. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal was to add far-right as one of the faction ideologies, not the ideology of the party. It's objectively true that various RSes describe the particular faction at issue in this RfC as far-right. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  And we can agree to disagree that a) these are reliable sources and b) that these people are a "faction" and not an "insignificant minority", but I'm not going to do that here. I'll note that the article on Democrats doesn't show "far left" as a faction, but it most definitely has a sizable portion (especially its leadership) that fits that description. I'm not advocating for it either. They are a heavily vocal minority especially at the federal and localized state level that has highjacked a party drawing it further and further left, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of Democrats aren't significantly more moderate than them. The same holds true for Republicans: the big distinctions at the high levels of the federal government don't translate directly to the percentage of the party as a whole. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  We can agree to disagree about the sources here, but they were not adequately contested in the underlying discussion, which is what we look at in a close review. Several oppose !votes in the discussion said the sources weren't reliable, in particular claiming that there weren't academic sources being cited (which is untrue) and otherwise not explaining why the sources were insufficient. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'll note that the article on Democrats doesn't show "far left" as a faction, but it most definitely has a sizable portion (especially its leadership) that fits that description. Uhhh...which US democratic leaders are even remotely far left? We barely have any socialists, let alone politicians to the left of that. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  For those of us on the other side of the Atlantic, referring to any of the American Democrats as "far left" is hilarious. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  And is calling any right-wing politician "far right" and "neo-fascist" correct? For intelligent people obviously not. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Marjorie Taylor Green, Javier Milei, Le Pen, all of AfD, etc.? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Only a small fraction of right-wing politicians are far right, and an even smaller one of them are neo-fascists, a term the left often misuses. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn per TurboSuperA+. Feeglgeef (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Listen, if I had been a participant I would have supported including "far-right" too, but I also think any reasonable person reading that close has to concede that it is at least a reasonable representation of the consensus. Honestly I think that it is very transparently the most reasonable reading of the consensus and that supporting one side when the !votes are evenly divided is more likely than not to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Loki (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus is reached by evaulating arguments, not counting votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but not how persuasive they were to the closer specifically. How strong they were in the context of the argument, which is closely related to a straight vote count. Loki (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes but there was no valid argument on the oppose side, other than claims that "sources don't exist" when in fact they did. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  The only sources that supposedly support exclusion haven't been shown to exist, and were provided by en editor banned for, among other things, making such claims. That is no basis for an argument. Cortador (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn. I try to stay away from politics but I don't think this close was a fair representation of how the discussion went. There were reliable sources, with some scholarly sources and no strong argument was provided for why these sources cannot be used. The arguments put forth by Simonm223 seem to be about describing the GOP itself as far-right, and not merely including far-right under the "Ideologies - Factions" part of the infobox, and yet, that (off-topic, strictly speaking) discussion seemed to take up considerable weight in the close. No justification was provided for why such an addition to the infobox requires even better sourcing that what was provided (several reliable organizations plus scholarly articles). 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I should note that I have, upon review of even more sources, walked back that position and favor calling the Republicans right-wing without any adjectives. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn per voorts above. I find it difficult to understand the closer's reasoning. The yes side provided the demanded academic sourcing but the oppose side simply said that wasn't enough without giving a policy reason why it wasn't enough. The closer seems to acknowledge all of that in the close (more or less) but then goes on to give the two arguments, effectively, equal policy weight to arrive at NC. Doesn't make sense. DeCausa (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  What policy requires that an item included in the article must also be in the infobox? This discussion is not about whether the information belongs in the article—it’s already there. The quality of sourcing is irrelevant to this debate since the content is already verified within the article. The opposition failed to provide a policy-based reason for exclusion, just as the support side could not cite a policy requiring inclusion—because no such policy exists. Nemov (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Republican "far-right" RfC)

I have not participated in the discussion, but I closed a couple of related discussions, including at Donald Trump, so I guess I'd be safer in this section.

Overturn. Supporters have demonstrated that there is ample sourcing to support the contention that at least a faction of the GOP is far-right, both in the media and the academia, which is the main metric that matters. They put up with the effort. As to the opponents... I would have expected them to say - these sources are bad, here are some academic articles saying that the Republicans are not in fact far-right/do not have far-right factions, decent news articles to the same effect. All I saw was baseless assertions that this is not how the academic mainstream sees the GOP, and that the Freedom Caucus is already labelled as right-wing to far-right, so no point to repeat this in the main GOP party infobox, and even then some of these folks agreed that maybe we should include the far-right label under "factions". There is a miscount of !votes in the closure, and the strength of arguments was wrongly assessed.

There was quite a bit of bludgeoning in the discussion from the supporters, but this doesn't change the overall picture for me: the sourcing is there, the opponents didn't really engage with the sources proposed, and objections ranged from personal opinions to esthetics of bloated infoboxes, but did not really discuss whether the reader stands to benefit from the omission in terms of whether the omission makes the article more informative, trustworthy, honest and neutral (or if they did, they were a minority). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I specifically read the three discussions mentioned by Chetsford, and only the second one makes a real effort at evaluating sources. The sources support the notion that there is a far-right element in the GOP, but not that the Republicans as a whole are far-right. The other two discussions do not analyse sources but for the most part simply express opinions.

In contentious topics like these, I expect editors to engage in a discussion like this:

It's right to call the GOP far right, my sources are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...

OK, source 1 and 3 are academic and fine, source 2 is a blog, 4-7 are news and are OK-ish. But here's my sources to counter yours: 8, 9, 10, 11... Clearly, there is no agreement

Well, look, I agree with the opponent, I also have sources 12, 13, 14... to back this up.

That's not what was happening for the most part. What we need to reflect in the articles is the consensus of sources, not what editors think about US politics. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Overturn I was a participant in the discussion and advocated to include far-right in some form to the infobox. I do understand where Chetsford was coming from with the close - those of us who wanted to include far-right were unable to persuade the excluders. However Chetsford missed that I actually provided 8 academic sources, not merely 3 before I lost my appetite for reading about the Republican party. Chetsford also failed to note that one of the principal editors on the exclude side of the RfC was topic banned from AP2 for disruptive behaviour including their behaviour at the RfC. They were the one who claimed there were insufficient academic sources and these claims were pretty clearly demonstrated to show a double-standard. Consensus cannot be formed with someone who is going to ignore any evidence contrary to their position. For these reasons I think that Chetsford is, with this decision, allowing that an article can be kept in perpetual status quo so long as the most obstinate page-watchers just say "no," regardless of strength of argument. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn. It's baffling that they put so much weight on Toa Nidhiki05's comments, especially the flatly misrepresented discussions incorporated by reference (their misrepresentation of the consensus in those discussions, and their refusal to engage with the sources that debunked the arguments they made there and elsewhere, was one of the things that specifically got them topic-banned). It's also alarming that Chetsford put so much focus on the fact that, past a certain point, nobody bothered to continue replying to them. This was not a sign that the side for inclusion surrendered the point, it was because Toa Nidhiki05 was WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with weak and duplicative arguments, which relied on flatly misrepresenting the contents of previous discussions in a way that was immediately obvious at a glance. Taking the position that every such vague and handwavy "nah the sources support me" comment must be replied to (even when so clearly and unequivocally misrepresenting the "incorporating discussions" that the person making them got topic-banned over it!) to would give too much force to bludgeoning. Discussions are decided based on the strength of arguments, not based on exhausting the opposition's willingness to continue. A closer obviously can't evaluate the sources in-depth, but when they feel that someone has caused another discussion to be incorporated by reference, there is some obligation to at least glance at the incorporated discussion to see if it could plausibly support their argument and therefore whether the incorporation is a weak or strong argument - which Chetsford clearly failed to do here given that (again!) Toa Nidhiki05's misrepresentation of those discussions actually got them topic-banned. Again, just looking between how scathingly Toa Nidhiki05's comments and interactions are described in the topic ban, as someone who bludgeoned the discussion while ignoring all arguments, and the glowing way Chetsford describes them here as if they made coherent points that went unrebutted, simply gives one whiplash. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support This was an overly long discussion but there are two factors at play. At the end of the day this is a case where what should be placed in the info box is a mix of editorial judgement and sourcing. This isn't a case where editors were arguing that this material couldn't be included in the article body. Rather the question was should such material be in a very high level summary box that by it's very nature doesn't allow for context etc. The closer correctly noted that just because some sources, even once published via scholarship, make a claim, that doesn't show this is a consensus view of scholars. In particular the closing comment that sources are more likely to say X is Y vs the negative would apply here. Second, when you have this many editors, a number who were not participants in the discussion, weigh in we can't just discount that editors felt this wasn't material that should go in this particular location. Springee (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I’m baffled by the arguments for overturning this close. The discussion wasn’t about whether to include the information in the article — it was specifically about placing it in the infobox. There is no policy requiring this information to be in the infobox, and the RFC discussion clearly lacked consensus for its inclusion. I’m disappointed that anyone would suggest otherwise. The RFCs about politics really cause loose interpretation of policy. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I think it's fairly obvious the discussion ended with no consensus. In my view, the discussion below is proving that. Not loving that many RfCs I am in are making appearances here! Carlp941 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Republican "far-right" RfC)

Responding to Chetsford's comments above:

with both sides making equally valid policy arguments This is a misrepresentation of my case. The case I made above is that the arguments brought forward are not equally valid. The exclude side demanded sources, the include side provided sources, and the exclude side did not provide a reason why these sources are insufficient. In fact, no direct replies were made to the comments in which Simon223 and I provided said sources explaining why they are insufficient. Furthermore did never claim that a split RfC should result in an include. My argument is that - based on arguments made and not votes - there is no 50/50 split.

No editor presented a policy-based argument in the RfC as to why X# of sources would vanquish the "overwhelming" criterion set by the Oppose side in their WP:YESPOV argument. I fail to understand why the include side bringing forward sources seemingly doesn't matter, yet the exclude side setting a vague "overwhelming" threshold needs to be argued against specifically (and not just by simply providing a high number of high-quality sources).Cortador (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• "The exclude side demanded sources, the include side provided sources, and the exclude side did not provide a reason why these sources are insufficient.", I describe above -- and in my many other communications -- that this is simply not true. Toa Nidhiki05 (for instance) did, in fact, provide a reason they these were insufficient. And, to my shock and surprise, the entire Oppose camp simply surrendered the point, even though it would not have been a too difficult argument to overcome. Unfortunately, it's not appropriate for the closer to "fill in the blanks". Merely thinking a rebuttal is not sufficient, nor is enunciating it after the fact; one has to actually type it out before the close. I can't make arguments for you.
  with both sides making equally valid policy arguments This is a misrepresentation of my case. The case I made above is that the arguments brought forward are not equally valid. I'm not trying to represent your case, I'm making a statement as the closer. This seems to be an enduring issue of misunderstanding -- the expectation that I should be acting to further your interests. Chetsford (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Toa Nidhiki05 did not provide any arguments why the sourcing is insufficient. They made the following arguments: the RfC is unnecessary, far right would be a label, the sources aren't academic, the Freedom Caucus is also described as right-wing, academic sources actually describe the party as centre-right/right-wing, not enough academics support this (without providing sources), the Freedom Caucus is already listed, and the RfC is actually about describing the whole party (which is was not). Those are all the arguments they made, and I failed to see how these counter the argument that there is enough sourcing.

  You stated above: The opinion of the challenger here is that an RfC ending with a 50/50 split of "responsible Wikipedians" — with both sides making equally valid policy arguments — constitutes "as wide an agreement as can be reached" for Support.

That is what you claimed is my opinion, and this is how you presented by case, and it is not an accurate representation. Cortador (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Toa Nidhiki05 did not provide any arguments why the sourcing is insufficient." You must have missed this: "academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism". They bulwarked this statement by incorporating all of the sources in these three separate threads [180], [181], [182]. You chose not to respond or explain why the sourcing you had cited would overcome the voluminous sourcing the Oppose camp provided by invocation, instead spending your time on arguing against the more irrelevant positions of the Oppose side like their Freedom Caucus OR (in fact, you continue to argue exclusively against their weakest and most irrelevant arguments even here, ignoring their core presentation).That is what you claimed is my opinion, and this is how you presented by case, and it is not an accurate representation. I was making a statement of fact, not a representation of your opinion. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Chetsford (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was making a statement of fact, not a representation of your opinion. You literally wrote: The opinion of the challenger here is That is how you chose to word this, and what you wrote is neither my opinion nor a "statement of fact". I never claimed that a 50/50 split should result in inclusion.

  Two of those links don't link to any specific threads, just to an archive page in general. The first one has one discussion ("Please change to "centre-right to far-right". Here are the sources.") that only features sources in support for there being a far-right faction. A second discussion ("Centre-right and far-right faction") doesn't list any sources that contradict that the GOP has a far-right faction. The second link likewise doesn't link to any specific discussion. It has one discussion ("Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties") where Toa Nidhiki05 claims that there's academic consensus that the party isn't far right. They don't provide any sources for this supposed academic consensus, and also state that part of the party is far-right. Another editor, Viriditas provided a source that the party as a whole drifted to the far right. The third discussion ("Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right") contains no sources except for one NYT opinion piece.

  I can't see whatever "voluminous sourcing" there supposedly is - unless you just took an editor's claim that there is sourcing at face value without the supposed sources actually having been provided. Cortador (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact that the RfC ended "with a 50/50 split of 'responsible Wikipedians' — with both sides making equally valid policy arguments". Your opinion is that this constitutes support, with which I disagree.

Except to say that I believe these are woefully inadequate characterizations, I can't address your other points, I'm afraid, as they are relitigations of the RfC, as opposed to challenges of the closing rationale. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed that a split means consensus for support. This is something you (charitably) misread, and quite frankly I don't understand why you keep repeating it. If you think I did, please point to the exact sentence where I said so.

I believe you can't address the other points because, as other editors also pointed out, there's nothing to address. There is no "voluminous sourcing" in the links provided.

I also find it concerning that you were happy to repeat TN's argument that there are sources in the links, but when it comes to substanting it, you suddenly "can't address" it. This comes across as just accepting one side's arguments without assessing whether they are valid. Cortador (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

"I never claimed that a split means consensus for support." Then I guess I'm not entirely sure what the point of this close challenge is, if you don't think there's a consensus for Support. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The point is that there is a case for inclusion based strength of arguments. I don't see how you could possibly conclude from that that I think support for a chance should be the consensus if the mere vote count is split.

Also, please point to the sources that TN supposedly brought up with those links. Cortador (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If the question was "do any sources call parts of the GOP far-right" then the strength of the arguments would win. If the question was, "can we mention far-right in the body of the article" then I would agree. However, this is a question about putting an arguably contentious LABEL in the info box where context isn't provided. In that case editorial judgement is critical and editorial judgement didn't support inclusion in the info box. Springee (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion was very long, winding and often hard to follow but Toa Nidhiki05 did provide reasons why a number of the scholarship sources provided at various points during the long discussions failed WP:V for the claims for which they were offered. However, the where and how "far-right" was to be included seemed to drift over time so it would be easy to see how a source dismissed for one use might be sufficient for another. Springee (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ - two questions:

• You said "there are enough sources". For my edification for the future, what number is "enough"?
• You said "The editors opposed to the change haven't argued why the many WP:RS should be ignored or provided WP:RS in rebuttal." For my edification for the future, can you describe why the three threads from 2024 that Toa Nidhiki05 incorporated by reference into the discussion with counter-sources and his argument as to the sufficiency of the sources provided, don't constitute a rebuttal?

Chetsford (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

1. In this source several academic sources are provided for far-right. Toa Nidhiki05 made a throw-away comment that there was a prior consensus. No sources provided to support.
2. In the second source, Toa Nidhiki05 points to a prior consensus but does not specify what evidentary basis it has. Viriditas provided several sources to remove "centre-right" from the article.
3. In the third source Toa Nidhiki05 claims academic reliable sources support center right and not far-right but doesn't identify any such sources. So, no, there were no sources in these links of TN05's that supported their position. They were just spamming links that referred to them making the same argument sans evidence in the past.Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

   And that is why nobody addressed TN's "sources" - there were none to address. That came up a lot in the AE discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I very much disagree with this interpretation of the linked discussions, but have to leave it at that, unfortunately, as a point-by-point analysis gets into a relitigation of the RfC, unfortunately, as opposed to a challenge of the closing rationale. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Please then tell me what reliable sources TN05 brought up in any of these three threads. Because you asked for an interpretation, one was given, then you said "well I disagree but I won't get into it."

No, please, get into it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this that TN brought up those links to demonstrate that academic sources "broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing". Even ignoring that no actual sources were provided, just vague links, the RfC wasn't about party position, but the ideology of a faction within the party (which was pointed out by another editor). Taking this single comment that doesn't even address the question of the RfC and stating that it somehow has equal weight to all other sources that were actually linked to (and thus qualifies as an argument against inclusion) is beyond baffling. Cortador (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The extent to which we're relitigating the RfC here is bothering me. The view from 30,000 feet is that this RFC expired without consensus. Parsing it individual source by individual source is distinctly unhelpful.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

What sources? Nobody has been able to provide the supposed sources in the past discussions. Relying on sources that can't be shown to exist to demonstrate strength of arguments isn’t acceptable. Cortador (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur with S Marshall. This is an unproductive line of query and should cease forthwith. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not unproductive, it is the entire point of this request: if these sources can't be shown to exist, the RfC close has failed to properly assess strength of arguments. Cortador (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It was the closer's view that both sides provided reasoned arguments grounded in PAGs, and the closer specifically cited the !vote in question and its purported source analysis for that proposition. It's not counterproductive to point out that that particular !vote didn't actually discuss any sources in making a sweeping claim about the state of the academic literature. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 7 March 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.

What is happening here?

See this. Technically we have no control over this but I would still like to know. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It's vandalism by Special:Contributions/GeorgiaAllTheWay that is being cleaned up. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's template vandalism. We can (and did) revert the vandalism itself quickly once noticed, but it takes time or null edits to ensure that the vandalism is gone from all transcluding pages, and time for the search engine to update its version of these pages. Animal lover |666| 17:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Seems to be all cleaned up now, but do we have any way of proactively preventing disruption from compromised accounts like this? IIRC there were several big discussions a number of years ago when several compromised admin accounts vandalized the main page... I'd wonder if there is something we could do in relation to "standard" accounts as well. I think the abuse filter can track and log IP addresses... could there hypothetically be a private filter that would disallow edits from a registered account that would otherwise be disallowed by the routine antivandalism filters, if there has been a sudden and significant change in IP address? Since an otherwise established account suddenly going on a vandal spree (as what happened here) is almost certainly compromised. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:A973:AE96:703B:D7FE (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Making the connection between an account and the IP addresses it uses requires the Checkuser permission. There are very strict rules on who can have that permission and when they can use that feature, and a nearly blanket prohibition on revealing the results of the checks they perform. DMacks (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for Fair Review of Edit 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 am writing to express concern about the repeated rejection of my edit request for the Gangwar (surname) page. Despite following Wikipedia guidelines, providing credible sources, and addressing editors' concerns, my edits have been unfairly dismissed.

The sources I cited are from reputable authors, yet they were rejected without valid reasoning. Dismissing them solely because the authors lack a Ph.D. in history is unreasonable, especially for a surname article. Additionally, claims that my sources lack editorial control were made without evidence.

I respectfully request a fair review of my contributions. If concerns persist, I encourage editors to provide evidence rather than rejecting my efforts without cause. 4rju9 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 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:Nafranfanu activity at Woodlem Education

• Nafranfanu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Woodlem Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi all, Hope it is appropriate to post here. The user User:Nafranfanu keeps moving their own draft (Woodlem Education) to mainspace and removing maintenance tags without addressing them. Due to the issues with the article User:Praxidicae previously reverted the move, but they "addressed" the issues (by removing tags) and moved the article back to mainspace. What is the next action I should take here? There's a possible COI due to promotional tone, of course nothing definitive. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the editor has objected to the draftication and you still disagree that the subject matter meets notability standards, the next step is to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD.

I see that @Praxidicae has already left a COI message. If the user continues to make promotional edits to Woodlem Education, you can raise the issue at WP:COIN. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks for the reply. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)