Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive371

Attempted doxing issue

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.

---

IP is using information not shared or found on the user's profile against the subject. Also see IP's message on subject's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_%28company%29&diff=1284897722&oldid=1284752784 Zinnober9 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup, and left some warnings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Another example of how OUTING rules allow people to get away with COI editing with impunity. This person has been open about their real life identity, but not open about their COI when editing the page about a company they are associated with, which for an admin seems extremely poor form. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The connection to the company is disclosed, but not their position or some other details I removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that he did disclose the connection a decade ago, I stand corrected. Ideally there should be a connected contributor template on the talkpage which there is currently not. That said it still seems poor optics for a wiki admin to be editing the article of a company that they are an employee of, even if the edits aren't overtly promotional spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There in fact appear to have been multiple people closely connected with the company editing the article. Not 'a' major contributor as the template says, but several. One has made the connection explicit on their user talk page, but others appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

The Arbitration Committee is considering motions to address WP:COI editing and WP:UPE by Tinucherian. The motions and discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

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.

J. K. Rowling under siege

Various article about Rowling's books and their derivatives are being supplied with less-than-WP:NPOV comments on the author's opinions regarding transgender issues. Special:PageHistory/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone illustrates the issue. It looks like the attendees of some internet forum are going into the world, feeling righteous. More eyes are needed. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This is useful to track likely problems: Special:RecentChangesLinked/J. K. Rowling. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a pretty widespread, organized spree. Maybe very liberal use of page protection for 3 days or so? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with that approach and have applied it to the article mentioned above. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Harry Potter has also served me well. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added a few more three-day semi-protections. Knitsey is doing a lot of the vandal reversions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You guys are on top of it; every time I check a Special:RecentChangesLinked, someone has just reverted the most recent vandalism. I'll still try to remember to check from time to time, on the many hands make light work theory. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I only realised after my revisions, that I probably should have left the reverts until they were blocked. I caused more clean up. I'm putting related articles on my watchlist now, such as Strike (TV series). Knitsey (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest continuing as you had been, if you have the time and inclination. I’m using the signal of multiple reversions as an indication that protection may be needed. There’s some other related articles that had a single hit-and-run vandalism that I’ve ignored for now as an indication of less disruption thus less need for protection.

And your reversions keep the article in proper shape for those casual readers coming by to use the wiki.

thank you for your help! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I can keep reverting. I've gone through just about everything Rowling related and waych listed it. I noticed a few had some reverted vandalism that happened once. Knitsey (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

organized spree? Nah, doubt it. She's just pissed off too many people at this point, especially with that recent picture of celebrating the latest anti-trans ruling with a cigar. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Floq on this one. Same "contributions", moving from east to west with the sun and alarm clocks. That's what internet fora are "good" for. Thank you all for your efficient response! Favonian (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Sarek here and would like to suggest that adding "anti-trans activist" when describing someone who is very clearly in fact an anti-trans activist is not "vandalism". I agree the information is likely WP:UNDUE on these pages but I feel like using the word "vandalism" here is a way of de-legitimizing these edits in ways that let admins deal with them with admin tools instead of letting them be resolved as a content dispute. Loki (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

very clearly is not a reliable source. If a person is called as such by and in reliable sources , then it can be treated as a content dispute. Otherwise, it's an extremely serious WP:BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If you accept "gender-critical campaigner" as a synonym for "anti-trans activist", https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Those seem to be more or less synonymous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"Gender-critical" is what anti-trans activists (or let's be clear, transphobes) prefer to be known as, so they are indeed synonymous. You'll rarely find RS using the latter, however, as given some of these groups' willingness to claim that it's libellous in some way, it's easier to use the sanitised version. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, there you go, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the source listed above, the inciting incident here is Rowling celebrating "TERF VE day", her words, and also saying explicitly that she'd donated to anti-trans activist group For Women Scotland. Loki (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, for posterity: USA Today says she has "anti-trans views" and MSNBC went even further and called her a "notorious transphobe" in article voice. (Yes, that's an article, not opinion. I've known this about Rowling for years and even I was surprised MSNBC was so blunt about it.) Loki (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan This specific spree seems to be coming from threads [1] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The top comment in that threads post is remarkably on point if in desperate need of copy editing "There are several problema with your edit. Even when she is, and also a piece of shit, by Wikipedia policies it is not relevant to the article, but you want it in the first page because of non enciclopedical reason. Also, your purpose is obviously not improving the page, but to make a statement, and you also invoqued users to edit the page. That's again policies as well. I really recommend you to read wikipedia policies, they are cristal clear and more or less objective." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There is new stuff happening in that endless slug fest[2][3][4][5][6] so this editing may be related to contemporary events (it could also be related to a forum based clique, the two are not mutually exclusive) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin help recreating history

The page Michael Grieves appears to have been deleted sometime after a Speedy Keep in 2022 and before a recreation in 2024, maybe a CSD. Can an admin please restore the full history; the lack of a complete history may have played a role in the recent creation of a second AfD because the first AfD info was not immediately available. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It was deleted on the same day as the closure of the afd as the article was created by another sock! If anything, I think you can treat the version before the first AfD and the first AfAD as non-existent, and evaluate this version independently. – robertsky (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason the result of the first AfD was Speedy Keep was because he flies through WP:NPROF both on citations and impact in his field. Maybe if that has been clearer in the history there would not have been a second AfD nomination. There may also have been less edit warring etc in the lead up to the second AfD nomination. If nothing else, for the future I think it would be good to have a better history, perhaps just a few statements (break all rules).

N.B., I have no skin in this, just standard NPP/AfD checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin closure requested (lab leak)

A lengthy discussion involving over 30 editors was archived on the lab leak talk page without a formal closure [7]. I’m seeking administrative input to help establish consensus and resolve the dispute on how to include the story in the article. I see a closure was already sort on the closure requests noticeboard [8]. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussions do not need to be "closed" prior to archiving, and this was not a RfC; rather it just got stale and the bot archived it (thankfully. on an over-stuffed Talk page). Your edit left duplicate copies in the archive and current Talk which is bad. I'd say this is another example of the kind of thing which has given rise to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#COVID-19 lab leak theory. Also is this a WP:LOGGEDOUT request? Bon courage (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

He's not saying it has to be closed, he's requesting it be closed because it ended up turning into a pseudo-RFC on inclusion because of all the tagging and the wide participation. Also, I'm not sure that citing a request that was declined is the best move here.

Alternatively, someone on the talk could just "eyeball it" and say inclusion/no inclusion, but I'm guessing someone would object to that as well. This is a remedy for that.

To be clear for closer, I believe we're talking about the thread "German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025." Just10A (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

He? Bon courage (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The best summary of that very long and meandering conversation is that it found no consensus to take any specific action. It's archived. Let it stay that way. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's not archived, it's currently on the talk page. Just10A (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Because I had to unarchive it. I really don't know why the MiszaBot config is 7 days, as if we are rushing things through. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's especially troublesome because editors frequently cite WP:NODEADLINE. Ymerazu (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Because the talk page has been at 100k since March 15th. If users stop replying to a discussion for a week, then generally a discussion should be archived on such a talk page. If the discussion is restored and no one responds, including when it was restored, then it should be archived. We can't keep every discussion on an active talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No, a vast majority of editors are for including the content in the article. The talk page MiszaBot configuration of 7 days and 50k is way shorter and lower than the default 30 days and 100k. We are not in any rush to create an encyclopedia. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

50k doesn't matter except for how much space the archive page is set for. 50k is low, but I assume there is a reason for it. 7 days for an active talk page that is having stale discussions makes sense. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

No, there won't be a reason for a 50K archive size limit (beyond personal preference or [rarely] ignorance – someone might, for example, mistakenly believe that will trigger early archiving if the Talk: page itself gets longer than 50K). That article already has so many archives (~10 per year) that it really ought to be running a larger archive size than average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's why I was saying that the 50k part doesn't matter since the user I replied to seems to think so.

As for the archiving issue, I think that is part of the issue along with too much playing with the settings and not keeping it at a high value. Archive 34 was used from April to October 2024 just fine and ended up at 102k with 15 discussions. However, someone seems to have started tinkering with the settings in October or November as the next archive is only 47k and six discussions. (For the worst example, Archive 43 is just 21k.) If it was reverted to 100k and a few of the archives are condensed, then I think things would be improved. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You are demonstrating why there is a need for the discussion to be formerly closed. A majority of editors are *for* including the story in the article, with only a minority of editors opposing. Its the same for the next three discussions down the talk page. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a strict vote, but you are correct. Not just a majority, but the overwhelming, vast majority as well as general argument postures were in favor. If this was just assessed without a closure, it would probably be added. Some editors would object to that, which is why this method is preferable. Just10A (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote at all. A single !vote based on sound NPOV reasoning would counteract an infinity of !votes which were not. Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We're saying the same thing. "general argument posture" = legitimate reasoning expressed by community. I'm really not in the mood to argue semantics here. Let's stop being litigious, get an assessment, and go from there. Just10A (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

COVID 19 Lab Leak Edit Restrictions?

Related to this page and edits by IP editors - the page currently has a notice on it saying that it requires extended confirmed status for edits. Generally, if this is the case, IPs and new users are supposed to restrict themselves to formal edit requests. This is absolutely not the case with this page swamped by IPs and SPAs engaged in lengthy debates that absolutely are not derived from formal edit requests. Does the Lab Leak page have an Extended Confirmed edit restriction as part of its CTOP designation? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See this request for protection of the talk page. It’s been decided that restrictions to the talk page are uncalled for now. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what I was asking about though. Simonm223 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but the decision was clear about the alternatives to henceforth follow and it took into account the fact that COVID is CTOP, which was stated in the first paragraph of the request (All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID)) and several times throughout the discussion ([…] apply ECP given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID) […], […] idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request., etc.). In the decision, it was stated that In some ways, this talk-page looks like the talk-page of a controversial topic should ideally look: mostly friendly, hassle-free discussions and exchange on how to proceed., contrary to what you suggested. But, of course, any further clarifications or alternatives on how to proceed are welcome. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

No. The list of topics with ARBECR is here Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions. The current areas are Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. While it's theoretically possible either of these but particular the latter could apply to parts of the lab leak and related articles, it definitely would apply to anything here and would be very limited. Note in addition there are community authorised general sanctions extended confirmation required in WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:GS/AA, WP:GS/KURD. However GS/community ECR diverged from ARBECR when ARBCOM made it stricter and limited non EC editors to edit requests, and there's been a reluctance among the community to go that far. As I remarked in the protection discussion, while admins can in theory EC protect talk pages if disruption is really too bad, and of course they can EC protect articles, they cannot apply ARBECR where it does not already apply. This was requested in another CTOP area but was sorta declined. (See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion. Having read this again, it seems to have been a bit bogged down and it wasn't that clear a rejection as I thought, still it didn't come to be. Also I had incorrectly thought there was a general request to allow ARBECR as a page or subtopic level sanction, but that wasn't the case.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant would not apply to anything here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support WP:ARBECR applying to COVID-19 broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe just "COVID-19 origins"? COVID-19 would probably include many thousands of articles that aren't being disrupted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's just the origins topics which are the problem. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Generally, if this is the case, IPs and new users are supposed to restrict themselves to formal edit requests. I disagree with this. I think restrictions on what new users can say on talk pages only applies to WP:ARBECR topics such as Israel-Palestine.

I would support indefinite extended-confirmed protection for the talk pages Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and any other COVID-19 origins-related talk pages receiving significant disruption. This is more targeted than WP:ARBECR and I think would take care of the couple of talk pages that are being regularly disrupted. Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory has been on my watchlist for years and it is exhausting to keep up with that page. I get the impression that there are many WP:MEATPUPPETs that arrive in bursts depending on what DRASTIC, Alina Chan, etc. post on microblogging websites. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I drop by that article every now and again. I agree that it's wearing. I think that ECR for the talk page might be a bit much, but I wonder if a simple SEMI, perhaps as a long experiment for 6 to 12 months, would be informative. Would the POV pushing move to a different article? Would editors be less stressed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support 6-12 months of semi. Sounds like a good compromise. I don't think disruption would move much because this only affects a couple of very specific articles related to covid-19 origins. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you name the articles offhand? COVID-19 lab leak theory and Origin of SARS-CoV-2, presumably, but what else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Those are the two that come to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, these two are the problem ones. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• And now we have an editor flooding the page with LLM crap. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

MiszaBot config and limiting community participation

User:Simonm223 reverted my attempt to adjust the MiszaBot configuration to apply default archiving settings [9]. This contributes to the perception that some discussions - such as the recent one with 30 editors overwhelmingly supporting inclusion - are being prematurely closed to prevent the content being included in the page. It aligns with a broader pattern, including an ECP request from another involved editor [10], in what looks like an attempt to limit participation from the wider community and readership. This article needs more and wider community participation, not less. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Good revert; that Talk page is already unmanageable without having the bloat dial turned up. The COVID origins topic area has historically been plagued by SPAs, POV-warriors, socks, the CIR-compromised, and other types of disruptive editor (witness the long list of sanctioned users). When topic areas become too overburdened in this way – a recent example is Israel/Palestine – Wikipedia will, yes, restrict access rather than broaden it. In fact the whole page protection mechanism shows this dynamic as a general way of controlling disruption. I am beginning to thing "COVID origins" needs the same kind of ECP regime that Israel/Palestine has. Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Removing IPs from the discussion in question, we still have a majority of registered AC and XC editors who take a position you oppose, so it would seem you're as keen to restrict established editors as you are unregistered or logged out ones. There are four concurrent discussions on the CIA, BND, DIA and FAM statements on the topic, and in all cases you seem to oppose any inclusion, where a majority support inclusion in some form. It is clear who the POV warrior is here. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTAVOTE (and erroneously thinking it is, is one of the perennial problems in this topic area). If editors are editing logged out as a form of socking then that would of course be very bad. Bon courage (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It is forced to a vote when a minority of POV editors make it that way. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ guys. We don't need to litigate everything. This is adding to the exact issues both sides of describing instead of alleviating them. No, we don't necessarily need to change the archive settings; we can just manually revert it when appropriate, as in here. But this isn't the appropriate forum. Let's stick to getting a closer for the discussion (instead of wanting to suppress one, which seems a little bizarre) and take any other discussions to the appropriate forums, probably the talk page. Just10A (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think there needs to be some discussion here in context of the broader pattern noted. Besides for trying to prematurely archive discussions and close off talk pages, certain editors are hatting discussions they themselves are involved in. On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 talk page, at least three threads have been closed in this way, all by the same editor who requested ECP. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note User:Bon courage has just manually archived the discussion where with the open closure request, demonstrating again the need for the discussion to be formerly closed by an administrator. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I fixed it, but yeah this is just weird. If no one wants to close it after some time, sure let's remove it. But I have no idea why someone would want to try to actively suppress a neutral party coming in to close a discussion. Just10A (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Are editors again putting the same content in both the Talk page AND the archive? This will break things. Bon courage (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  If we want to fix that issue we can, but that's totally different from knowingly archiving it when it's being discussed. It's not a dichotomy. Just10A (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  And why have you copied different stuff to that under discussion? What is going on? Bon courage (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't do it, I'm just undid the edit. If you want to fix the technical issues without removing the discussed topic from the active talk page you're more than welcome to. But again, it's not a dichotomy, those are 2 separate issues. Just10A (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Editors own the edits they make, and one assumes very large (164k) edits to the Talk page of a WP:CTOP are made with extreme care. You have made a big mess, with multiple sections of the Talk page now duplicated in the archive. What are you doing? Bon courage (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  All the more reason for you not to archive the discussion. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion has never been out of the archive. But two editors (you and Just10A) are copying "the discussion", and several other archived discussions, back onto the Talk while leaving them in the archive, and edit-warring to keep it broken. This is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  A minor technical issue. Of much greater concern is the effort to suppress the outcome of the discussion. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  "What are you doing?" I undid an edit made by an editor who erroneously argued that the only way to fix an otherwise good edit with technical issues is to completely erase the edit instead of just fixing the smaller technical issues and leaving the rest. Which is fine. I can do it myself, but I imagine you are more aware of archiving technicalities than I am (since you are clearly vocalizing it, and that's not my primary editing expertise). If you refuse, I'm more than happy to try my best. But it's obviously not a justification to remove it wholesale when you can just fix the minor issues. It's not "all or nothing," that's just a false dichotomy.

  Now, for the last time, I really think being this litigious is not helping anything. Let's just get an assessment and go forward after that. We're not in a rush. Just10A (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to suspect it's the "German intelligence" thread that the IP is on about, rather than the "Expert Survey" one. But who knows? I'll leave this mess for somebody else ... Bon courage (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Great. Well, aside from the fact that refusing to assist with known technical issues without the quid pro quo of removing the whole discussion is pretty much a textbook example of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, I'll try to fix it myself. Apologies to anyone if I make mistakes, it's not my primary editing realm. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I fixed the issue, at least per WP:ARCHIVE. If we could get a close now, that’d be great. Just10A (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  I disagreed that it was fully fixed, but I just went through the archives and fixed a few of the issues I saw. I will say though that the settings being at 30 days is too much in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps its best for you to leave it to an administrator. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• 30 days archiving period for that talk page is excessive given the pace of discussion. 14 days is more appropriate. Also reducing the archive size down to 50k given that there are 46 archive pages is ill-advised. If anything the archive size needs increasing to 150k at minimum. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, except I'd suggest 200K for the archive size. Most articles shouldn't be generating 10 separate talk-page archives per year.

  Wikipedia's a complicated place, so just in case the processes are unclear to anyone looking at this, here's a few facts that might be useful:

  • If you want to request a closing summary of any discussion, including a discussion that has already been archived, please make those requests at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Anyone can make those requests.
  • There are technically no limits on the age of a discussion that is posted to Wikipedia:Closure requests. You could technically request a closing summary for a discussion that happened two decades ago, although AFAIK nobody has ever been silly enough to do that.
  • Wikipedia:Closure requests limits itself to closing discussions that are on the English Wikipedia. That is the only location restriction (e.g., they will not officially accept requests to summarize discussions that happened at Meta-Wiki or on Facebook). The discussion can be on any page at the English Wikipedia. If the discussion is 'archived' (meaning: copied out of the current discussions and into a subpage) by the time the closers (who are not necessarily admins; that's a different role) respond to the request, then the closer will simply un-archive it at that time. Closers are accustomed to unarchiving discussions and will not be surprised or concerned about this at all.
  • The archive size (e.g., |maxarchivesize = 150K) is about how big the archived subpage should get, before the bot creates a new archived subpage. It has absolutely no effect on the size of the ordinary Talk: page. For example, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) has a maxarchivesize of 300K (unusually large), but the current discussions sometimes exceed twice that, and they are frequently a third of that. The effect this has, especially on a busy talk page, is: How many separate archives will you have to click on, if you want to find a discussion that happened last year? How many discussions will usually be in each subpage? We try to keep this at a fairly "medium" size, because people working on smartphones and other low-powered devices find extremely large pages to be difficult to load and navigate, but having them be too small is not helpful to anyone.
  • The timer before bot archiving (e.g., |algo = old(14d)) is about how long the bot should leave the discussion on the talk page after discussion has →stopped. Please take careful note of that last word, "stopped". For example, if the bot's archiving timer is set to 14 days (as shown in this example), and you post a bump-type comment ("Would somebody answer me?") every 13 days or less, then that discussion will never be archived by the bot. To give a more realistic example, if the bot's archiving timer is set to 14 days, and discussion is busy for a couple of weeks, and then you have an occasional comment for another couple of weeks, and then it finally stops, then the bot will archive the discussion 14 days after the discussion stopped. The bot's timer does not care about when the discussion "started"; it only cares whether the discussion has stopped for longer than the archived time.
  • It is normal and expected to adjust archiving settings based on page activity. Most talk pages don't see much traffic, so they'll have settings that keep everything for a year or more, or they won't use bot archiving at all. But when traffic spikes, it's normal and expected to adjust the archiving settings. Did the page get big? Then please speed up archiving of the inactive(!) sections so the bot will clear out the older discussions on the page. Did the page get small again? Then please slow down archiving of inactive sections.

  I suspect that the procedural parts of the concern here are based on a misunderstanding of how the archiving bots work, so I hope this explanation will be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing thank you for making the first three points explicit. I spent time CSD'ing four archive pages for that talk page because editors had been messing around with the archives, moving discussions out of them and back to talk, in what appears to be a mistaken idea that WP:CR couldn't deal with any discussions which had been archived.

  I think we should be ultra clear that editors, especially inexperienced ones, should not be messing around with archives, unless they have a clear understanding of what they are doing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing the mess. I've added a bit to WP:CR's header about archived discussions.

  Also, for a moment of wiki-history, I added the billiard balls to the directions at the top of that page more than a decade ago. It makes me happy to see them still there. Much later, I learned that the uniform appearance of our policies and guidelines is one of the things that makes it difficult for newcomers to remember which page they were reading. I therefore recommend occasionally adding a whimsical or iconic image to such pages. It'll be easier for people to remember, or at least to give us a hint about the page they were reading, even if it's just "I think it might have had billiard balls instead of numbers?" (Computer sci folks who know about "the camel book" or "the llama book" will know how this works in the real world.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Austin Metcalf

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 name of the minor accused of the Killing of Austin Metcalf keeps getting added to multiple locations on Wikpedia. It has been reported at WP:BLPN and WP:AFD, but keeps getting added. Is there a way in which we can escalate this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation to name him, as the sources are not suppressing his name (which, I will admit, is odd). Whether or not there should be a redirect from the suspect to the victim is a matter for RFD. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac:, I understand your point. However, this same issue arose prior to the conviction of Gerson Fuentes as well as another individual whose name was posted in media who the Wikipedia community did not want posted in articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess I was thinking you were asking for administrative intervention, not just extra eyes on the situation. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There are a multitude of people asking that the name be removed, in addition to me asking for PERMANENT deletion of the information. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, consider this (at least for me) a formal decline of your second request; it does not meet the OS criteria, nor (because the name has been published) does it meet RD2. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Not that odd, given that he's black and the victim was white. That's how our media works these days. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

When did English Wikipedia turn into a newspaper? Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In theory, the core business of a newspaper is gathering unpublished information, rather than summarizing other publications' comments. Material that is verifiable in a prior publication is therefore unlikely to be an example of 'Wikipedia turning into a newspaper'.

WP:NOTNEWS begins this way: "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." It also bans "Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and articles "written in news style" Since "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", we could attempt to make the case that this is one of the many that don't qualify, but IMO that case will be easier to make a couple of years from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a previous consensus to not name the suspect? If so, some editors may be simply unaware of it and you might need to make it more visible (e.g. on the talk page or in an edit note). If not, it's probably a good idea to get a RfC started. Not an unusual thing for crime-related articles, either; see Gilgo Beach serial killings, Moscow murders, and the killing of Brian Thompson as examples. wizzito | say hello! 20:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion on the talk page where one editor suggested it should be included if policy allows, one editor replied with a reasoned argument for inclusion, a third editor agreed with inclusion without leaving a detailed rationale. One of the second two editors (I don't remember which) added the name to the article. The redirect from the accused name was nominated for deletion at RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Karmelo Anthony), where I recommended keeping as it was prominently mentioned in the article, apparently with consensus as there was no opposition in the talk page thread. Since that time further comments for and against inclusion been left on the talk page and discussions have also been initiated by those who desire exclusion here and at WP:BLPN and a request has also been made for protection at WP:RFPP (the latter due to the name being added and removed from the article multiple times). As far as I can see whether to include or exclude the name is an entirely editorial matter (that I don't have a strong opinion about) balancing the prominent mentions of the name in multiple reliable sources with the accused being a minor (17 years old) who has not been convicted of a crime (I believe he has been charged, but the article isn't completely clear on that). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• While there are news outlets naming the child suspected of this killing, we can choose to have higher standards. I think we should.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The suspect is 17, which makes them a minor but not a child. I believe they were charged as an adult. Also, the discussion about whether to include or exclude is happening on the article talk page rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 21 April 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.

Izno, a Wikipedia administrator, keeps removing the Planned Launch section from the Nintendo eShop article

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

---

Izno keeps removing the Planned section, even though it is supported by reliable sources. Editors have provided sources and links to support the Planned Launch section, and the map has also been updated. Despite this, he continues to remove or revert the edits. See the links that he reverted: Edit 1, Edit 2, Edit 3. Nightmare0001 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute in which no administrative tools have been used. The fact Izno is an administrator is irrelevant. AN is not an appropriate venue for this. (Also I see a lot of primary sources in the reverted content.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked this user as a fairly obvious sock. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock, no need to run by me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Izno is an administrator is not totally irrelevant if this is indeed a content dispute, seeing as I used rollback, which is not for content disputes. But in this case, it's not relevant because this isn't a content dispute but instead that the user I reverted is likely to be a sock of Yukitanooki, as DG has also identified with this editor. Izno (talk) 15:00, 21 April 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.

Permission removal (Three Sixty)

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

---

Please remove my PCR and rollback flags. Thanks. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 01:24, 22 April 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

…on List of film auteurs page. @Techn0driv33 keeps adding particular film directors to the list while having no reliable sources and deleting sources for previously added directors. Would someone with film theory knowledge look into it please. AnotherTimeline (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@AnotherTimeline, please notify Techn0driv33 about this discussion. You can follow the instructions in the pink box at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a source but you would not read it in the slightest while offering 0 analysis. You just keep on going how Ryan Coogler is 100% not an auteur and is a commercial director without offering the slightest bit of analysis then when I call you out for using your own opinions on him to justify that hes not an auteur you keep refuting and just saying I have no film knowledge and its even more egregious looking at the other names on the auteur page like Adam Sandler Techn0driv33 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

it would be a different thing if you pointed out why the article fails in describing Coogler as an auteur instead of just going on constantly about how your are 100% correct and have all this film knowledge while i have none Techn0driv33 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(nac) @Techn0driv33: and @AnotherTimeline: This is apparently a content dispute, and as such it should be discussed at the article Talk page, not here. If you are unable to reach a consensus there, try resolving the dispute at WP:DRN. Good luck. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC) I think I had a case of the yips. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Think you meant @AnotherTimeline:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

"Request for investigation: Suspicious activity on Natalac page

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

---

I am reporting suspicious activity by user MusicLover123, and numerous other accounts who has been making consistent edits to pages related to Southern hip-hop artists, including Natalac. These edits often remove or downplay Natalac's contributions and seem to be biased.

I suspect that MusicLover123 & others may be operating multiple accounts (potential sockpuppetry) and have found similarities between their editing style and another user, HipHopFan90.

I kindly request that an administrator review this situation and take necessary actions to ensure Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and sockpuppetry are upheld.

Evidence:

- Natalac's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalac - MusicLover123's amungst others user contributions: - Relevant edits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Pgeezy,_Styles_P,_and_Natalac.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Pgeezy,_Styles_P,_and_Natalac_(cropped).JPG https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebbelz_Da_Model

it's unusual for a public figure with a significant career to not have a stable Wikipedia page. This could indicate that someone or other is intentionally targeting Natalac's page, possibly due to personal motivations or biases.

Thank you for your attention to this matter." Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

But is Natalac "a public figure with a significant career"? The English Wikipedia article about him was deleted last month, and we can't do anything here about Commons or the Portuguese Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

yes, looking at the history of Natalac he has a significant career than spans 30 years with numerous collaborations on his own record label with grammy award winning and notable musicians accross america

https://jacksonvillefreepress.com/30-years-in-local-rapper-natalac-continues-to-rock-the-industry/#:~:text=With%20more%20than%2030%20years,stage%20with%20music%20industry%20legends. picture here at natalac Records with label business Benzino and Styles p.

https://fox59.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/774912122/natalac-30-years-representing-jacksonville-releases-the-return-of-goldie/ Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue notability. If you have issues around conduct on commons or Portuguese Wikipedia then you need to raise them there. You will find no answers here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

i dont have any issues with Portuguese Wikipedia, not augue i dont do that, my reason for using that was portuguese is the numerous entertainers that work with Natalac even in different countries and different languages.... For Natalac not to be significant Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

In short im asking for an investigation into Suspicious activity on Natalac page seems suspicious that Natalac's Wikipedia page has been repeatedly vandalized and deleted, despite his apparent success and widespread recognition in the music industry. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to "investigate" and there is no vandalism, The article was first deleted five years ago for lack of notability. A variety of other article names have since been deleted for lack of notability or for promotion, or because they're redirects to nowhere. AN is not a place to argue notability. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for Review

Good day! I’d like to request a review into two specific users — Careybull and 71.229.251.189 — who have been making salacious edits to both the Peebles Corporation and R. Donahue Peebles pages. Upon reviewing each user's contributions, I noticed that they have only edited Peebles-related pages. For instance, if you check the Peebles Corporation article, you’ll find edits from 71.229.251.189 that include improperly cited references, altered context while still relying on the same source (rather than supporting the changes with a new one), and several unsourced updates. Meanwhile, Careybull’s edits appear to lean more toward the whitewashing of referenced information.

It appears that both users may be using the platform with the intent to manipulate or distort Peebles’ credibility. If you could look into this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said on the Teahouse, you must notify anyone you discuss here(see instructions at the top) 331dot (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just notified 71.229.251.189 and am about to notify the other user. Thanks. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Notified both editors. Thanks Axeia.aksaya (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for neutral administrator review-Draft: Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss

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 kindly request a neutral review of my draft article Draft:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss.

The draft has been reviewed by a user who is not an administrator, and I believe their dismissal of reliable, third-party sources may reflect a subjective judgment. I respectfully request that an experienced administrator evaluate the article based on Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines.

The article includes:

- A published monograph officially registered with ISBN [978-9984-322-97-5] in the National Library of Latvia (https://dom.lndb.lv/) - Public confirmation of publication by the independent publisher “Sava Grāmata” - Cultural recognition from H.R.H. Princess Cleopatra VIII Generosa Cardamone, publicly posted on an official government-like website (https://www.principatocardamone.com/slow-art) - Verified authorship of an international art movement (Slow Art), with multilingual documentation and media references

I remain open to improvements, additional sources, and structural editing if needed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You have already received a "neutral review" but you appear to not like it, there is NOTHING in your draft (sourced to Facebook) that suggests you are notable in Wikipedia terms. Courtesy link User:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss/Draft Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 22 April 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.

Unblocks backlog

Hi all, CAT:RFU has been slowly creeping back up for a while, but it really ballooned after the most recent push at SPI and now we're back over 100 open requests. Help much appreciated! -- asilvering (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The last drive was helpful, the backlog went to below 15(the point at which the backlog notice disappears) for a bit. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Bashiiry and vandalising 'Ughaz Roble I' page

I have warned User:Bashiiry over 4 times from vandalising the page and explained to him why he was wrong(his statements contradict the sources provided on the article).

In the talk page, other editors have raised this issue where the Ughaz is known to be the chieftan of the Issa clan. Instead of constructively engaging in the talk page, he has spent his time smearing the article with his own tribe/clan and partook in degrading terms in the talk page, even calling someone "a son of a whore"(ina dhiloy).[11] Replayerr (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hhh when they insulting me its ok but when I reply or respond isn’t feel good hypocrite Bashiiry (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Gimmetrow

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow for Gimmetrow 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.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Politically slanted article in the midst of an election Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

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 asking for administrative action on the article Canadian economic crisis (2022–present). It seems clear that the article is biased and was created by someone with limited knowledge of Canada. Given that there is currently a federal election underway in Canada, I suggest that the article be deleted, or that it at least be put out of public view until such time as it has been edited for neutrality. Humpster (talk) 05:19, 24 April 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 granting move-subpages to template editor user group

Hi fellow admins,

I had opened the topic for discussion at WP:VPI about 4 days ago and it is now moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Grant move-subpages to template editor user group. The proposal will effectively allow template editors the ability to move subpages alongside the main page for their convenience in moving Templates with subpages. Many Templates now have subpages for development and experimentation purposes, /sandbox, /testcases, /docs.

With this change, there might be changes to the overall admin workload, i.e. perms granting or dealing with new types of reports relating to TE moving subpages unintentionally (I hope it is unintentional).

If you have any inputs, do share your thoughts at the discussion linked above. – robertsky (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed on collateral damage

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

---

Can I get some more experienced admins in the areas of proxy blocking to look at User talk:Kruft. I can drop the current hard block down to a soft block, or grant IPBE, and tell Kruft to just edit logged in, but I don't want to do that without understanding why it was done in the first place. The blocking administrator isn't very active nowadays. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I've unblocked the range. It's possible there were some dodgy IP there a few years ago, but it's probably changed hands and there's also (other) collateral. I don't think the /19 block stands today. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:42, 24 April 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 - repeated incessant AfDs

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.

---

After reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon I am very concerned that the user @Chetsford is nominating articles for deletion in bad faith, likely with an intent to be disruptive. While I am not well read on the UFO topic, it appears he is attempting to have several BLPs of notable people in the UFO community deleted. So much so that Jimmy Wales himself got involved with one of the AfD's to vote Keep. - One that I actually voted Weak Delete on prior to Jimmy entering, with a warning that it sounded like the nominator (chetsford) had an agenda with the language he used to describe the deceased subject of the BLP.

Please review his recent nominations when you can, thank you. Brenae wafato (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

For concision, I'll address the forthcoming flood of these reports in the section below. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales himself! We can be sure then that this has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Incessant - two. Two AfDs. Hardly incessant. And The guy went on Joe Rogan's podcast for christ's sake is a sure sign of notability. For sure. For sure. (Not.) Brenae wafato, I'd suggest you consider that what you accuse Chetsford of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is, in fact, mirrored in your case (WP:ILIKEIT) and you should walk away here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A minor indulgence of preemptive disclosure

I apologize as this isn't precisely appropriate for AN, but its transient nature also doesn't precisely make it correct for userspace either. In any case, in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, and out of a preponderance of a caution, I feel it appropriate to register a note that I have previously used administrator tools related to discussions involving UFO topics and to establish a clear waypoint of affirmation that I am acting only as an editor in relation to the below described AfD.

• Background: I recently AfDed Harald Malmgren. This AfD seems, unfortunately, to have had the effect of winding up UFO enthusiasts in a way we haven't seen recently, heightened slightly by a decision of a member of the WMF board of trustees to join the discussion. I have variously been accused (on, but mostly off-WP on Reddit and X) of being a CIA plant, orchestrating crimes against humanity, canvassing !votes, being a communist, being affiliated with the "Guerilla Skeptics" (an off-WP coordination group), operating outside the Akashic Consciousness Field, and being an extraterrestrial trying to stop UFO disclosure; and, an (admittedly, impressively organized) group has formed to advocate for my banning, doxing, and desysoping.
• Disclosure: With that in mind, I am -- in a spirit of full transparency and to mitigate any future questions -- preemptively disclosing that I am not affiliated with the "Guerilla Skeptics" and clarify I have not used any admin tools related to a UFO topic in which I was involved.

Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not a UFO enthusiast and I saw your AfD last night before any of those NEWACCs and anons showed up. And I agreed with your nomination, with the caveat that it sounded like you had an agenda against the BLP - which it is rapidly becoming clear to me that you do. I never claimed you were part of any group, either, however I am concerned after having seen your other AfDs that you are nominating articles regarding a subject you just don't like. Brenae wafato (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"I am concerned after having seen your other AfDs that you are nominating articles regarding a subject you just don't like." I've nominated 113 articles for deletion and participated in AfD discussions on 750 articles. Aside from the two you cited, are there others that relate to UFOs? It might be helpful if you could list them. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Harald Malmgren, Pippa Malmgren, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon where your AfD succeeded, so at least three. You were also behind the WP:UFONATION policy where NewsNation is a WP:N media source for apparently everything except UFOs. ArdentMaverick (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford: While it's true that only two of your AfDs are UFO related (Harald Malmgren and Christopher Mellon), your broader editing history suggests a pattern of UFO skepticism that could be perceived as bad-faith engagement. For example:

Edits to David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Article

You made two direct edits to the article:

1. #1268602176: You added a sentence downplaying the validity of the whistleblower testimony by exclusively citing the opinion of three well known UFO skeptics (Adam Frank, Seth Shostak, Sean M. Carroll)

2. #1268495188: You inserted a reference to an article you created, Psychological perspectives on UFO belief, which implicitly insinuates that the UFO claims made by Grusch during his congressional testimony could have been the result of a mental health condition resulting from his military-related PTSD. Apart from this, your article also demonstrates a bias as it frames UFO interest primarily through a pathological lens (e.g., linking it to "mental health disorders").

Contributions to Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Talk page

Your participation in discussions about David Grusch’s claims reveals a pattern of attempting to discredit reliable UFO sources while promoting skeptic viewpoints:

- You encouraged editors to dismiss NewsNation’s reporting because it has a "sketchy history when it comes to sensationalism and UFO reporting". Dismissing UFO coverage from a reliable and mainstream source because you disagree with how it covers the topic is content bias. You initiated an RSN discussion that resulted in NewsNation being flagged as "unreliable for UFO topics" in which you disproportionatly quote professional skeptics (e.g., Mick West) while ignoring the various credentialed goverment officials who have and keep speaking publically about UFOs.

Overall I agree with @Brenae wafato's concerns. Your two most recent articles nominated for deletion appear to have been done in bad faith. This is quite evident, especially after reviewing your past contributions, which show a pattern of overweighing UFO-skeptic perspectives, using procedural tools (RSN) to suppress disfavored content, and frequently using language that mocks UFO disclosure advocates. Peer-reviewed skeptic (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

LOL. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Further confirmation that "bad faith" is one of the most misunderstood terms on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence presented by multiple editors, there appears to be a pattern of problematic behavior.

Chetsford's pattern extends beyond the "two AfDs" they claim, they've engaged in a systematic campaign against UFO-related content across multiple articles and discussions.

Their creation of the WP:UFONATION policy specifically to exclude reliable sources when covering UFO topics demonstrates procedural gaming rather than good-faith editing, also, the nomination language used in the Malmgren AfD ("whacky claims about marauding space aliens") reveals explicit bias that contravenes Wikipedia's commitment to neutral point of view.

The very fact that Jimbo Wales himself intervened in one of these deletion discussions shows the significance of these actions. OliverWX (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that both @OliverWX and @Peer-reviewed skeptic familiarize themselves with both WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS before making any further edits. -- asilvering (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for closing

To avoid the further deluge of the project, I've withdrawn the nomination of the AfD that is at the heart of this thread. [12] If someone would be so kind as to close the AfD, I'm sure many would be appreciative. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:33, 24 April 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.

Hate comment

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.

---

Bringing this hate comment [13] to admins attention. The IP is clearly not here to build encyclopedia but for certain POV agendas. Hionsa (talk) 19:22, 24 April 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.

Gimmetrow recall petition certified

The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow for Gimmetrow to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator recall. 28bytes (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Referencing

Good day, everyone. As a new editor who contributes to and expands articles, I’d like to ask:

• How can I quickly archive sources or references in an article?
• Also, is there an automatic or fast way to identify and fix duplicate references? Are there any tools that can help with this?

Thank you in advance! Arc Rev (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arc Rev, I don't fully understand your first question. You should ask these questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE, it is designed as a question and answer forum, and people there will be able to help you. Welcome to Wikipedia! CMD (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

CMD, to be fair, the Teahouse is semi-protected because we still haven't figured out how to deal with the TH/HD troll.

@Arc Rev

Re #1, Help:Using the Wayback Machine is where I first thought to look, but you'd want to look at User:InternetArchiveBot and the tools on the userpage. JayCubby 04:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know the troll had a new name. Can we make the "Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!" stand out more? Checking in incognito, it somewhat fades under the very prominent "Ask a question" banner. CMD (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Re question #2, the user script Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences will help you identify duplicate references, and NAMEDREFS are the preferred method for citing the same source multiple times in the same article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump's Justice Department has launched an attack on Wikipedia and the WMF

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney

 – a more appropriate venue– robertsky (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II

The Arbitration Committee has reviewed a dossier of "Tech4Palestine" Discord server related evidence and has determined that, as of this time, the concerns raised have been adequately addressed. The evidence has been retained by the Committee to be used, if necessary, to corroborate additional evidence received. The editors who were brought up in the report are:

• Samisawtak (talk · contribs) - topic banned by ArbCom
• Ïvana (talk · contribs) - banned by ArbCom
• Tashmetu (talk · contribs) - EC revoked, warned for violating ECR
• Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) - Result of below
• ZionistHater (talk · contribs) - Blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Drmies
• Discourseofcourse (talk · contribs) - Blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Bbb23
• Ummahrican (talk · contribs) - 2 edits 10 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Ronnie_larko (talk · contribs) - 218 edits, last edit 4 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Sarachicad (talk · contribs) - 32 edits, last edit 10 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• WamelSlice (talk · contribs) - 8 edits, last edit 8 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Rw29014life (talk · contribs) - 12 edits, last edit 11 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• HadyaWaqfi (talk · contribs) - 1 deleted edit 8 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• ToTell3Truth (talk · contribs) - 1 edit 11 months ago - No action necessary, can be addressed if they return
• Shushugah (talk · contribs) - No evidence of misbehavior
• Baderdean (talk · contribs) - Edits fr.wiki, ArbCom has no jurisdiction

The Committee has been provided additional evidence of off-wiki coordination independent of the Tech4Palestine Discord server. As a result the committee has passed the following motions:

For violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia.

Support: Aoidh, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, ToBeFree, Theleekycauldron

Oppose:

Abstain:

For violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, GeoColdWater (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia.

Support: Aoidh, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, ToBeFree, Theleekycauldron

Oppose:

Abstain:

The committee encourages the community to continue to provide any private evidence of off-wiki coordination to the committee via email.

For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II

Edit to the protection policy

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

---

Please make the alt texts more descriptive. Halovik (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The best place to bring this up would be on the talk page of the relevant policy. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not confirmed or autoconfirmed. Halovik (talk) 12:52, 26 April 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.

Off-wiki harassment; help needed

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

---

For the last year or two, some "twitterati" has been pretty obsessed with my editing, calling for my ban from wikipedia.

I know of course that editors here cannot help me with off-wiki harassment, but I wonder if you can help me with this latest x-post What they have done, is to take the diffs between the 07:16, 21 March 2025 edit and my 22:05, 24 April 2025 on the Netiv HaAsara massacre; making it appear that I did a lot of edits that another editor did.(!)

It looks like screenshot. My question is, how do they get it? I get this when I take the diff between the two versions? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Huldra: If you view the diff in the Visual rather than Wikitext mode (see option at top right of the page), you get something like the screenshot on X. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare:; ah, I see. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:21, 26 April 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:Mandiraj

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.

---

Keeps vandalizing pages related to Pakistan with cheap insults (i.e "Terrorist Army") or claiming the motto of the Pakistani Army is "Terrorism in the name of god" - Indefinite block necessary. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Diffs? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you even look at Mandiraj's contributions before demanding diffs? I've just checked a brief selection and pretty much all of them are either blatant vandalism or a serious BLP violations: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I have indeffed them. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban exemption

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 know this is very early, and I know this will most likely be declined, but I have no choice but to post here. This falls under WP:BANEXEMPT #2.

I was given a conditional unblock here, that states that I am topic banned from the projectspace forever, with exemptions. I have violated the topic ban once (see my talk page there), and now I am at risk of violating again today. So there is an NPP backlog next month and I want to participate in the backlog. And so I posted a prompt telling any user to put my talk page onto the signup page. This constitutes proxying, which is often not allowed. So I would like to have a very temporary exemption to my ban—that is to join the backlog drive. This is one time by the way; probably I may do so again when there is another backlog. Please reconsider this. ToadetteEdit (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban was put in place to keep Toadette able to continue contributing to English Wikipedia and to allow English Wikipedia to keep an editor who has done some very good work for the project. But Toadette has now, on multiple occasions, pushed the lines of that topic ban against the protests and warnings of multiple administrators. Given the amount of time this is using, and the very real possibility that this is likely to continue, I think either the topic ban needs to be expanded to remove the exceptions, thus eliminating any ambiguity, or this needs to become a more general block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I put forward on their Talk. You are not "at risk" of violating it, as if it's something passive that happens to you. You are choosing to violate it just like you did with the talk page edits about the RfAs. You are blocked from project space and a desire for barn stars is not a reason to lift the ban. I'm not at the point that I'm advocating for a site ban, but I think the a p-block entirely from project space would be the clarity TE needs to understand they are not welcome to edit there and should focus on articles. Star Mississippi 23:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a compelling reason to grant exemption. Exemption would not benefit project, only the applicant. Support pblock from project space to prevent further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Why a more general block. I occasionally edit articles; I currently have a good article nomination that hasn't yet been touched. I am also in worry if such exceptions be removed or not, because I sometimes initiated AfDs, and participated in some of them. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeing things like I have no choice but to post here and I am sorry, but I am doing this. It's probably not the best choice out there, but let's see how it goes. are extremely concerning. You do a lot of very good things on Wikipedia, but you also have displayed issues with impulse control. You are not without choices. You chose to discuss a topic from which you are explicity banned. You chose to ask someone to sign you up for something that you're not eligible to participate in. You chose to ignore Star Mississippi and Floquenbeam, after they bent over backwards to see your actions in the best possible light, and open up a whole discussion here because there is something you wanted to do that you are not currently allowed to.

And no, you're not "topic banned from the projectspace forever, with exemptions," you're topic-banned for six months with appeal and successful appeals happen all the time. If the eventual result is that you end up never being allowed in projectspace again, it can only be as the result of the choices that you made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

About the first choice, it was just a misunderstanding of my conditional unblock, and I wasn't aware of that until the first warning came. The second, I doubt the eligibility of the drive. This means that I could not participate in any drive, anywhere on the site??? About the third, I have nothing to say about it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding every time you come into contact with something that you want to do but that you are not currently allowed to do. A clearer topic ban, with no specially carved-out exceptions, would make the topic ban easier to understand and easier to navigate. There will always be other backlog drives to contribute to once the topic ban has been lifted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit I am also in worry if such exceptions be removed or not, because I sometimes initiated AfDs, and participated in some of them. What does that mean? You are explicitly allowed to participate in deletion discussions as part of your unblock although you are not allowed to close them. The fact that you still don't understand that is further proof of why you shouldn't be appealing your sanctions and why you may need more concrete sanctions to make it clear to you what you can and can't do. Star Mississippi 23:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yes, I can not conduct closures after I disabled the scripts during the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban. And for the abovementioned quote, I am still concerned because I sometimes patrol pages, sometimes while playing the Wikidata game, and in some occasions the page does not meet notability guidelines so it should be deleted. PRODs are often unreliable, since one can remove it and it can not be reinstalled. And I also participate in random XfDs, especially after clicking on a link or something. So to be concise, the quote means that removing the exceptions could hinder my existing activity in the areas in question. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per the unblock conditions: These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed (emphasis added). Six months have not passed, and thus the topic ban may not be loosened. Oppose any additional block/ban. TE's comments regarding the LaundryPizza RfA was strike one. The attempted proxying was a minor violation of the TBAN and I think TE is sincere about wanting to participate in the backlog drive. TE, you need to learn to pick your battles. I suggest withdrawing this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Seriously? This has become a consistent pattern of less-than-optimal conduct on the part of the editor in question. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re This has become a consistent pattern of less-than-optimal conduct on the part of the editor in question. How is the pattern which I am exhibiting consistent. I know that the RfAs and the talk page discussions are evidences of such pattern. Are there any more evidence regarding this?? ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's your constant attempts to skirt the conditions of your unblocking. You seem unable or unwilling to abide by those conditions, and constantly ignore advice to do so as evidenced on your own talk page. Just abide by your restrictions and focus on editing articles as many have suggested in the past. It can't be more clear than that. Intothatdarkness 15:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. All ban appeals fall under WP:BANEXEMPT #2, and that does not mean that one does not have a choice regarding when to appeal (to then say that appealing "very early" was not a choice and had to be done). —Alalch E. 00:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Every time someone makes a reply it seems to be met with more questions. This is typical sealioning and falls foul of WP:SATISFY. Please close this, someone who knows how, to avoid wasting more time. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I couldn't since it will violate my topic ban. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you withdraw your request, it will probably be easier for someone to close this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 27 April 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.

71.33.161.17 global vandalism

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

---

71.33.161.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — please block this IP globally. First this IP attacks administrators on their English Wikipedia talk page, and then attacks me on my Wikimedia Commons talk page. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See this — https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Seal_F1&diff=prev&oldid=1025512484 — The Seal F1 (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia admins can't assist with conduct on other projects. Please raise the issue locally. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but i dont know if there's identical page on Wikimedia Commons? The Seal F1 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See this page for the Commons noticeboards. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 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.

URGENT!!!

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

---

Urgent. In the protection policy, make the alt texts more descriptive. Halovik (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You already posted this. Please stop. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

NEVER!!! Halovik (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked OP as WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 15:58, 28 April 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.

Tree Fu Tom and other animated UK children's progammes

This is odd, there is a Sky Broadband customer who keeps editing the cast lists of UK children's programmes.

These include Tree Fu Tom, Charlie and Lola (TV series) and Kerwhizz. It's not a case of joke edits putting his mates in instead of the real actors, or substituting a regional cast for the original, they seem to be replacing the real actors with genuine voice actors from other programmes.

The user seems to keep refreshing their IP every day or so, maybe they're doing it from a cafe or switching their router off.

V strange, don't know what can be done. Rankersbo (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There are several IP vandals/trolls who focus on children's TV/film programming, most often they create fictional series or movies and then cast their favorite voice actors. They can be a little obsessive, I remember one incident where an editor created a fake series and listed 60 episodes complete with titles that extended several years into the future. They frequently create these articles on main space Talk pages. As far as I know, this activity has been going on for at least a few years now and comes and goes. The best remedy is to protect the page titles against creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

IP removing "Middle East" from 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.

---

2A00:23C5:EDA9:4D01:FC44:58F7:2F96:47A8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Removing "Middle East" from articles, obvious vandalism Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

On sampling a few of the edits I don't see any obvious vandalism, but simply removal of "Middle East" when "Asia" or "West Asia" is already specified, so just removal of redundancy, Could you link to some edits which are vandalism? Of course some edit summaries would help. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

[21], [22], [23], [24] but yes a lot of them happen to be removing "Middle East" when "Asia" is already mentioned Kowal2701 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

All of those are the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, sorry I’m in the wrong here, I’ll apologise to the IP Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I looked through a load of their edits and they're all legitimate, the Middle East isn't a continent on its own it's part of others. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 28 April 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.

Closure requests of Fringe theories noticeboard discussions on trans topics

Wikipedia:Closure requests#WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities
Wikipedia:Closure requests#WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard#RFC about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and FRINGE
These have both sat here for two and a half months now. Note that this is a quite contentious subject area. Might need panel closes. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sandstein has done the first one! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Editor review for biography

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

---

Hello everyone. I'm new as a Wikipedia editor, but I'm pretty good in biography of Josef Mengele. Also I speak Ukrainian. On his biography page in Ukrainian language there's really few info so I write it in big pieces. Can someone please approve them so they're are visible for Wikipedia users? I'm still writing. Thank you in advance. PangeaBlick (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Different language version of Wikipedia operate separately, so English Wikipedia can't help you with the Ukrainian version of the article. You may want to try posting to uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:44, 29 April 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.

Anonymous user making disruptive edits

I’ve come across a user making disruptive edits on the page Annie (musical) and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

User: Special:Contributions/2600:1009:B008:82:C18E:DB15:5265:6BFD

As of now, this user hasn’t received any warnings. However, I thought it would be best to just go here. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war at Navin Ramgoolam

Unsure if this is the right board to bring it to, but ANI was where this was initially brought, so I'm bringing it here again.

Since at least November, @BerwickKent and @Nikhilrealm have been in a constant edit war over content at Navin Ramgoolam with very little communication and frequently going far past 3RR. After this was previously brought to ANI, the edit war seemed to die down. However, it looks like it's kept going but in slow motion with gaps of months in between reverting each other now.[25][26] Ramgoolam's article fell off of my watchlist, so by the time I caught it and reported to ANEW, the report was closed as stale. However BerwickKent has just reinstated their preferred version with no attempt to continue the talk page discussion with Nikhilrealm that's been quiet since February. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I could have sworn I was on ANI when I wrote this, apologies if this isn't an appropriate noticeboard or if I should have just gone to ANEW again. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I'm keen to resolve this matter as I have always provided references for material that I have edited on Wikipedia. So why do you insinuate that "BerwickKent has just reinstated his preferred version with no attempt to continue the talk page discussion with Nikhilrealm" ?

2. Can you please advise how you've concluded that I'm a "he"? BerwickKent (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

1. You did not engage on the talk page before reinstating your edits over "vandalism" and as of writing, still have not.

2. A thoughtless mistake on my part, I apologize. I've edited my original message. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 00:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

My salting of Tresean Gore, and my declining of a request to unprotect the 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.

---

• Tresean Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the 2023 AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tresean Gore, the deleted article was recreated with substantially the same content, and I therefore deleted and salted the title. The editor who recreated the article post-deletion has requested that I unprotect the page. I have declined to do so, and instead requested that they first create a draft and have it pass WP:AFC review. As this editor has suggested that I am "gaming system with permission", I am choosing to step away from the matter, and bringing it here for administrative review of my actions. BD2412 T 04:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I didnt tell that you are gaming with system i told you that im gaming with system because im doing it, its o fun DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood your intent, which is still not good. My view of the matter is unchanged. BD2412 T 04:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You know what type of playing with system im talking about right? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

im gaming with system because im doing it, its [so] fun So you are saying you're not here to improve the encyclopedia? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Its more like this one:Wikipedia:PGAMING DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen this alternative go through but it seems like the vote at AfD for draftify was a good idea. I don't love the salting because the subject clearly could become notable rather quickly; however, the article does not belong in the mainspace at this time. Czarking0 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Didnt want it draftify just unprotected DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0: It was draftified before and moved back to mainspace without any meaningful improvement. I don't know if that it why draftification was declined by the closing admin of that discussion, but the salting was due to post-deletion recreation

@DarkHorseMayhem: Why do you want it unprotected? As I noted on my talk page, nothing prevents you from creating a new draft. BD2412 T 04:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I told you multiple times DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@DarkHorseMayhem: You basically stated that you want it unprotected because you feel bad that it was protected due to your actions, but that tells me nothing about your intentions with respect to the title. Do you intend to recreate an article at that title? BD2412 T 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No man i told you i dont want to recreate at this moment i just wanted unprotected for future so other MMA page editors who are more experienced then my who edit that part of can move page freely without contacting you if they chose so. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

They don't need to contact me. Any admin can remove the protection. There is no ownership of the right to do this. BD2412 T 16:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Point is protection is no longer necessary cause i will not be moving page just randomly to mainspace like before DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I've given DHM a final warning for "gaming the system" (a review of their edits shows what they mean). Since the reason BD2412 brought this here is the (reasonable) impression that they were being accused of gaming the system, I think this can be closed. Salting was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You can only take my extend confirmed right i which i dont care for it i dont vandalize anything and you know it DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a playground. I can, and will, block you sitewide idefinitely. Stop. Fucking. Around. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Im not vandalizing anything DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Jeez, To editor Floquenbeam:. Don't mince words. Tell us what you really think. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if we're dealing with a case of WP:CIR or a really dedicated troll here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 29 April 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 eyeballs requested for a consensus

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 an ongoing discussion on WP:MCQ regarding the use of a website as a reference and if that website violates COPYVIO. A consensus needs to be reached, hence the request for eyeballs. (I will be posting this on ANI too for the same reason, admin eyeballs and not forum shopping) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for closure of AfD: Dutch Caribbean

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, the AfD discussion for the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean has been open for over 7 days and appears to have reached consensus in favor of deletion. No substantial policy-based arguments were presented to keep the article.

Would an uninvolved admin be willing to review and close the discussion?

Thank you in advance. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 23:13, 1 May 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.

Lorenzo Pace restore (G5 deletion) by editor who has not edited in the last 100 days.

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

---

I tried to request that Lorenzo Pace either be restored or userfied to someplace like User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Lorenzo Pace, then I realized that the editor last edited on January 15 and has 6 edits in the last year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, are you asking administrators to do something, or just letting people know about this? Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger Looks like it was deleted per WP:DENY, so I don't see why it would be a problem for you to take ownership of it. With cited sources from The History Makers, NYTimes, and this write-up from Illinois State news to flesh it out, you'd have no problem crafting an article either. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger:, I have restored the old version to User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Lorenzo Pace, but would suggest a thorough source check and going over otherwise before moving it to another space. BD2412 T 02:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thx. I'll have a look.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Request removal of Extended Confirmed right.

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

---

I would like this right to be removed from me i don't need this right on me DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:57, 29 April 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.

Firefangledfeathers, I wasn't aware that you could un-EC a user. Do you know if it gets automatically readded at some point when the user keeps editing? (Assuming that the editor does keep editing, which would seem to be counterindicated by DarkHorseMayhem's block log.) And aside from requests like this one, is there any process for un-ECing an account? If someone abuses this right, it seems to me that some sort of blocking is a better option. Nyttend (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

EC is a user right that can be granted or removed using the ordinary processes (the "Change user groups" link in the menu); it not only does not get automatically readded, it's standard procedure to "add and remove" EC from an editor caught WP:PGAMING so that it won't be automatically conferred when the 30 days come up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think The Bushranger has the right answers here. Did that answer all your questions, Nyttend? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Bushranger is correct per my understanding as well. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, everything makes sense. I'm just surprised that someone gaming the system would be added-and-removed, since such a situation is clearly disruptive. Maybe the point is that the person might not notice and might continue editing with the same account instead of creating socks, as the blocked editor might? Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that usually removing the motivation for the gaming (disabling automatic EC granting) removes the motivation for the gaming, and thus the gaming/disruption ends. There was one case on ANI (still on it right now, in fact) where a "caught" editor promised not to resume, resumed regardless, and was indef'd. But IMHO if a situation can be resolved with sanctions other than a block, which the "grant and remove to disable auto-EC" does in the majority of cases like this, that's better for everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Nyanda*

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

---

Can someone explain to me (like I was 3YO) what is happening with this user / these users?

1. Nyandal (lower case L at the end)
2. NyandaI (upper case I, that's 'eye', at the end)
3. Nyandar

My working assumption, FWIW, is that the final characters in #1 and #2 are visually confusingly similar on purpose.

Of these, #1 is G.locked and hasn't edited for two months. I had a convo with them back in Feb at User_talk:Nyandal#Account_pair about accounts #1 and #2, but I think they were pulling the wool over my eyes. In any case, I'm none the wiser.

And #3 doesn't actually exist anymore, since it has been renamed (see User talk:Nyandar) and is now #2... I think.

At the AfC help desk we now have #2 presenting with a question regarding Draft:Timoth Mayala, which they say is theirs ("this is my first time to make a submission"), but which was created by #1 before they got locked. And just to confuse things a bit more, that draft is actually blank, because the content was moved to User:Nyandal/boxsand, and subsequently deleted.

I have a distinct feeling of being played, and evidently I'm too thick to figure out how. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both the two accounts that actually exist here (#1 and #2 - #3 was renamed to #2) are now globally locked, so I don't think we've got an issue here. I've deleted Draft:Timoth Mayala anyway, because it doesn't have any reason to exist now. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think NyandaI (#2) is locked? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ach, you're right. That'll teach me to click on a diff on someone's talkpage only to find it was the other account that made it. Anyway, it's a self-professed alternate account of a glocked account [27], so I've just indeffed it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Could you please undo this block? There was abusive impersonation involved here, with NyandaI as the victim. The account using a lowercase "l" was impersonating the one with an uppercase "I", which is why the lowercase "l" account was locked, while the uppercase "I" account was not. See also this thread, which has already cost me a great deal of work. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sake. Many apologies. Well, that's the first time I've seen a user with 100+ edits and "normal" account name (Nyandal) being the impersonator of someone with a dubious-looking name (NyandaI) with only a few edits. But, yeah, done. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 1 May 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.

Someonefighter banned

For repeated attempts at off-wiki canvassing and coordination in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict topic area, Someonefighter (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately, and every six months thereafter.

Support: Aoidh, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Sdrqaz, Theleekycauldron

Oppose:

Abstain:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Someonefighter banned

Long term label vandal

This edit introduced incorrect record labels into Rascal Flatts. The IP made other edits back in March, and I've seen several other pages get vandalized with incorrect (and often anachronistic) record label attributions. Here is another one I reverted that went unnoticed for five days. I don't know if this is an existing documented vandal, but some of their edits have gone unnoticed for days or even months, and there doesn't seem to be a common link among the IP addresses so I don't think a range block would help. What should be done to make other editors more aware of this vandal and thwart their edits? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Noleander

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1.1 (Noleander topic-banned) of Noleander is rescinded.

​For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Ostrich258

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 revoke TPA for Ostrich258 and revdel the racist edits 2600:100C:B0A7:4D78:89FA:305:A8AF:4839 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. He's been spamming the N-bomb, which is... pretty disturbing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been monitoring this Conroe, Texas-based vandal since the summer of 2024 and he does this about every month or so. I’ve also been monitoring the Africa page since 7/24/24, when Hydrogen88, one of his many sock puppets, added 1.8 million bytes to the page. This is the so-called vandal “Saturnium119”. This is his 30th sockpuppet. I know the LTA’s m.o. and made a Google Doc for myself that includes the LTA’s m.o., targeted pages, confirmed socks, etc. Should we make an LTA case? 2600:100C:B0A7:4D78:89FA:305:A8AF:4839 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Done by Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2600:100C:B0A7:4D78:89FA:305:A8AF:4839 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Block and hide revision 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.

---

Long term cross wiki abuse and harassment targeting mainly me, and also other no-wiki sysops. Special:Contributions/77.18.61.247 1000mm (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The user has been blocked. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 21:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the user was blocked just right after I posted. 1000mm (talk) 21:45, 2 May 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.

Untagged sock

I am not sure when should socks be tagged, or who is competent to tag them, but AstroNerdh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked but untagged. I don't know if this is deliberate, but I would suggest tagging. Janhrach (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not something that you should bring here. If you have this sort of question, you should go to the blocking admin, in this case, Kuru, who did note the master in the block, even though they didn't tag the user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exploreaniii.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Delte me - This is an Extremely Urgent 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.

---

Hi, I’m requesting deletion of my own user page (User:TenthEagle), but I cannot edit it myself due to [protection/block/etc.]. Please delete it under criterion U1. THe test on my talk page is have an extremely negative effect on my work life

I should point out that the block was for a false copywright infringemen & despite repeated requests ,nobody will unblock met

Thank you. 2A04:4A43:8D6F:F7AD:2472:215D:A6D2:40D5 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Your account still has talkpage access, and you've used it only a few days ago. Please make this request on your user talkpage, while logged in. Feel free to ping me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

zzuuzz done dood it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:16, 3 May 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.

Battle of Hamek

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.

---

• Battle of Hamek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I said on the WP:MILHIST page:

"This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this?"

I was told to come here about this, my apologies if I should go somewhere else. Page created by User:Gueevkobani. Setergh (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not for discussing article contents. If you think the article is not sufficiently verifiable (WP:V) through reliable sources (WP:RS), you can propose deletion of the article at WP:AFD. Sandstein 09:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Setergh (talk) 09:20, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

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! A matter related to the photo for the current DYK set is in need of another administrator's eyes. Thanks, ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for File:Filodes fulvidorsalis lachryphagy.png to be restored to the DYK set. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:44, 3 May 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.

Yuri Gagarin vandal

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.

---

Recently, a lot of editors have been dealing with a vandal who rapidly copy and pastes various things on articles, often on obscure topics, usually using proxies. Drmies asked me to post this on AN here, so here I'll go:

This is a vandal from Russia who targets basically every article linked to Yuri Gagarin. Yes, literally just that. They have access to a large number of proxies, but some of the earliest IPs weren't. Basically, their MO is to spam as much material into linked articles from Gagarin's article as quickly as possible, possibly to get them protected. Their first edits were adding random, mindless keyspam to articles, then moved on to "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic," then some Japanese and Korean spam, but they have now started copy-and-pasting MAB's threats, probably just to create as much as a mess as possible as they require revdel. Note that this editor isn't MAB, just an impersonator. They seem to be moving downwards from the top of Gagarin's article, if you take a look at the links.

So far, protection has been the most successful strategy, but they sometimes return to articles. Using rollback is helpful, especially the rollback right as their edits are extremely rapid. I'm not sure what their mission is, but whatever their case, this is still something to be aware of.

Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 19:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ha, it is happening again, Cutlass. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • They're very persistent, that's for sure. Cutlass^Ciera 01:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
    • OK, a bit of an update: This is probably Salebot1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), just taking on a new form. The first account to start this behavior was Shahdara Asseel birds3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which was reported to SRG as a Salebot1 sock (evidently so as by filter logs). Cutlass^Ciera 01:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
      • I just want to know why we can't have a fucking edit filter catching this. How hard can it be? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

        @Daniel Quinlan: perhaps you can help. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 13:46, 3 May 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:Qaboos_bin_Said#RfC on sexuality

There's no problem with a closure review here, but it would be better with an opening statement written by a human. I note that Itshrabkhan's contribution to the original RfC was also AI-generated. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Itshrabkhan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The AI has done a fantastic job writing a report here, Itshrabkhan. Would you like to have a go doing it yourself now? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear others' opinions on this closure. This close was previously discussed on my talk page here. Personally, I am not actually certain that this request was written by AI, it seems like a more formal extension of this editor's style. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Happy to be disproven, but I put the text through several different detectors, all of which came back at 100%. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! In any case I'm sure Itshrabkhan can rephrase and reformat it as necessary to relaunch a discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It is actually AI-generated content and I don't see any problem with that unless I'm missing something, and I'm happy to know why. Nevertheless, I'll recreate the opening statement. Itshrabkhan (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Not withstanding the AI, I'm concerned about the exhibit of WP:PREC and WP:SPA behaviour. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Rewritten request

Qaboos_bin_Said (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Itshrabkhan‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [[28]]

Reasoning: This is a request to review the consensus of the RFC in Sultan Qaboos bin Said's talk page. An RFC of whether to include rumours about Qaboos sexuality in the article. I believe that the outcome of the RFC needs a review because it was a single mind consensus whereas it should be how the voting ended.

The exclusion was based on a solid arguments and wiki-policies. For instance, sources stated that “Qaboos was widely believed by Omanis and Gulf Arabs to be homosexual” where in fact believed by only (3) Omanis and by saying “everyone knows about that” as the same sources stated, claims are claims and amount nothing than gossips or rumours.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to include allegations unless there are sources stating facts rather than just claims, and that this is an issue of any significance in the country which I don’t think it is. It is essentially dishonest to act as asserting the existence of rumour is somehow distinct from asserting the truth of that rumour.

In sources context, one of the sources quotes from a source that has been previously removed as unreliable, other is based solely on claims from only three individuals, which doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:UNDUE, another one is explicitly states that these are rumours, and the last one appears to recycle the same claims from these sources.

Arbitration motion regarding procedures relating to requests for amendment

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In line with updates to procedural documentation made in November 2024, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Format of requests for amendment is amended by motion with the following change:

(d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than 1000 500 words.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding procedures relating to requests for amendment

Help request

Copied from WP:HD.

I need some help regarding my account. Recently, I tried updating my Android software through a third-party app[Odin], but the process failed midway and my phone got stuck. I took it to a local mobile repair centre, and they fixed the issue but unfortunately, all the data on my phone was lost in the process.

One of the things I lost was access to Oxiyam.Primal. I had enabled Two-Factor Authentication in this account and saved the backup codes as screenshots and in a text file stored offline on the phone. Now all of that is gone. I also had 2FA enabled on other Gmail and Outlook accounts linked to it, which are now inaccessible too. Chronos.Zx (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried recovering my mobile photos [by this ] to find the screenshots of the codes, but over 20,000 pictures were recovered, making it nearly impossible to locate the right ones.
As a result, I’ve lost access to Oxiyam.Primal. I’d like to request that my user-right rollbacker/PCR be transferred to my this account: Chronos.Zx andd If possible, could Oxiyam.Primal also be redirected to Chronos.Zx, as I'm unable to reply there?
This edit technically confirms this is my account[29]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've copied this over from WP:HD. I'm not familiar with this editor, so bringing this here for more eyes. My feeling is that if the request is genuine, we should grant the permissions, at the same time removing them from the account that has been lost access to. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots, for bringing this here.

I was just about to post it on AN myself, as the Help Desk seems much less active these days. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, given the userpage edit linked above. Chronos.Zx, I have given you the two user rights you've requested and redirected Oxiyam.Primal's userpage to yours. ✗plicit 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Explicit. I don't need extended-confirmed right, I’ll regain it within a few days, as I’m planning to resume work on my pending article about the Anthacus plant species. Have a nice day. Regards Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx, on the password recovery: There is software to perform OCR on a set of images and search through that text. I can give some specifics if you're interested. JayCubby 14:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m familiar with OCR. By the way, what’s the name of the software you’re referring to? Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx -- I've anecdotally heard MemeScanner works well for this exact purpose (searching large volumes of images for text). I wouldn't trust it with passwords but for the fact it works offline. Files by Google can do the same, but I haven't had phenomenal results (I use FbG, and have just seen MemeScanner recommended in a bunch of odd places). Google Photos is worth a shot as well. JayCubby 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for protection of Yazidi genocide (1915)

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, The article Yazidi genocide (1915) was recently nominated for deletion twice by the same person, less than an hour apart. The first nomination was closed as “keep,” but the second one over the same reason which we have now removed.

Can I request temporary protection for the article to stop more repeated deletion attempts and so the page can be improved without any distruption?

Thanks! DataNomad (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA demands that you provide evidence for your claims — if you don't, you're making personal attacks against the person in question. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataNomad nominated for deletion twice, where? Also, you got to respond to replies be it here or elsewhere (i.e. at RM/TR) rather than opening new discussions and not responding to queries if you want admins or other editors who are empowered to assist you with your requests. – robertsky (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

A rough chronology:

• Yazidi genocide (1915) was created last week by OP.
• An IP editor quickly tagged the article for AfD, which I ended up reverting as an incomplete nomination.
• The IP immediately reapplied the tag. Much discussion has ensued on the article talk page.
• Eventually the talk page was copypasted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yazidi genocide (1915). This has since been deleted (and the AfD tag removed from the article) by DatGuy as a malformed nomination.

My only involvement aside from the above was to apply CTOPS (Kurds/Kurdistan) notices to the article talk page and to OP's user talk page. I have no strong opinions otherwise on the article, but it can definitely use some more eyes upon it. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Another user has since moved the article to Draft:Yazidi genocide (1915). --Finngall ^talk 20:01, 5 May 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 – May 2025

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

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My topic ban

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

---

I would like to have some of my topic ban exemptions removed, in order to recover from the ANI flu after reading the endless discussions in the last few years. Here are my conditions:

1. The standard exceptions to bans. Remove this.
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process. Remove this as well.
3. Deletion discussions or deletion reviews. Only limit this to XfDs only.
4. Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA. I might need this just in case, but this should be marked as uncontroversial; controversial requests is banned.
5. The last one should also be removed, since I will maintain to be a neutral party, and I want to keep community interaction minimal.

To be honest, applying for an unblock was a bad choice. Instead of expecting a "welcome back" response, I got banned... And I got warnings for using user talk pages to comment about RfAs. And I also lack the required judgment since I am just a teen and so I am doing so just to focus away from thinking about meta discussions and just focus on improving content, and review a few drafts. I apologize if I have been disruptive. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

For those wondering what the numbered items are referring to and for the rest of the restrictions not mentioned above, here are the unblock conditions from 21 February 2025:

1. An indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: spaces, broadly construed, with the following exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed:
   1. The standard exceptions to bans.
   2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process.
   3. Deletion discussions or deletion reviews.
   4. Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA.
   5. Participating in, but not starting, a discussion where they are directly involved in a discrete and preexisting dispute (e.g., an editing conflict that is brought to WP:RSN), or are a named party to a dispute (e.g., at WP:DRN).
2. An indefinite topic ban from requesting additional permissions, broadly construed, regardless of namespace.

For the avoidance of doubt, this conditional unblock does not affect ToadetteEdit's current topic ban from closing discussions (in any namespace).

These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Note to others, as I initially misread this request. This is not a ban appeal. @ToadetteEdit is requesting to increase the restrictions by removing some of the exceptions to the ban from the namespaces Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider this a voluntary editing restriction on top of your TBAN? Responses:

1. I don't think it's prudent to remove the standard exceptions.
2. Fine.
3. Fine.
4. I don't think it's workable to distinguish between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" reports. I'd be fine either eliminating this exception or keeping it. Up to you.
5. I don't think we can remove this. If you make an edit that someone contests, you have to be able to respond.

You didn't get a warm welcome back because of the extent of your disruption and the wariness editors had about unblocking you. I'm glad you're now recognizing the harm you've done and want to avoid doing further harm. I hope you can continue to be productive and eventually regain the trust of the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be a voluntary request for a restriction, so that I could be able to learn how to focus on content work and not focus on the meta discussions. I admit that I had been disruptive in the past, as evidenced by the block from ANI two years ago. And so I didn't see a "welcome back" message but a restriction that I did not expect. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Meh. Why ask for an increase in restrictions, when you can just try to.. not? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The reason is that some of the restirctions reslly do not have any benefit for me. Like I would not make use of the advantages. As said in the previous failed request, some users proposed removing the exceptions, which were too broad, and so I wish to have some of my exceptions removed, with the most important exceptions remain. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit, don't waste our time. If you don't want to edit in those areas then just don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not honestly not wasting any time; I apologize if I did so. I just want to have some exceptions removed as useless. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are not going to use those exceptions, then just don't use them. Why do you need multiple admins to comment on this thread for something that you yourself can manage? You are already restricted more than the average editor, so there's no principle of least privilege at play. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

And if you can't remain constructive with those exceptions, to me that says you need to be indeffed, and we shouldn't simply take these exceptions away from you as a response. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this position. So far we've sadly seen lots of talk from this user, followed by potential (or actual) violations of the block and a series of ill-advised actions. The best course of action in my view is to actually PROVE you can function productively in the Wikipedia environment without the need for topic bans and the like. If you can't do that...indeff might be the only way forward. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I am actually proving myself that I can overcome the ban through regular editing and content creation. Unfortunately, since I am on mobile and there is not enough time, I could not edit that regularly. I am depressed by why I could not attend the backlog drive just because of the ban. My apologies if I am talking too much in the recent months, but I am trying to convince the community to do so. And in regards to the CIR issue below, I am trying my best not to have another indef which will impact my history in the future. For not, I am very stressed about the ban; I currently feel that the community has rejected my help and just want to kick me out of the encyclopedia—which I am making useful contributions on—like trash. As a teen, I do not have a developed brain like the adults here so I often tend to move quickly and that resulted in the ban being implemented. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The thing is you don't seem to wish to learn from your mistakes. You just keep offering excuse after excuse and taking up the community's time with endless requests to modify things you have created through your own behavior. There are many teens on Wikipedia who contribute content, and do so quietly and competently. But you don't seem willing to stick with content creation and instead keep pushing into areas you admit you may not be ready to work with. That causes disruption. Many people have tried to work with you, and frankly you've been shown a great deal of patience and accommodation. Intothatdarkness 11:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest either leaving the topic ban as it is currently in place or turning it into a normal WP:INDEF. It's unfair for volunteer administrators and the community as a whole to have to administer a constantly shifting set of very bespoke restrictions to accommodate one single editor, no matter who they are. If exceptions are added and removed like they're Lego bricks, they'll just be another discussion like this every few weeks. The current topic ban, as currently constructed should be considered the WP:LASTCHANCE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In my experience as a former teenager with impulse problems, I don't feel like what you're suggesting will help, honestly. You don't need to use the exceptions even if you have them. Making a personal oath to not use them is easier, less annoying if you do end up needing them, and doesn't provide the same forbidden fruit itch that the restrictions do.
If you don't feel like you need to edit in those ways, you don't need to. Respectfully, showing remorse by requesting a tight leash causes frustration for all parties and doesn't really do much in the ways of positive outcomes. I think showing you can edit constructively even with the exceptions in place would cause less frustration for everyone, and show more capability on your part. -- a lad insane (channel two) 07:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• query can someone please explain why this editor is allowed to be a mentor when they seem to have trouble editing themselves? Thank you 47.180.76.112 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've wondered this as well. Intothatdarkness 21:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  +2. CIR issues never-ending and I still see no major signs of change (well, other than leaving Meta-Wiki altogether). --SHB2000 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  CIR issues???! How is such issue never ending. Now you claim that I have competency issue while I continue to improve the mainspace. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Note that there is no set rules to become a mentor, let alone the minimum edit count and age. But I doubt whether users who are not in good standing are not allowed for mentorship. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this request shows the opposite of what you think it does. Sanctions are lifted when people demonstrate that they can use their judgement and self-awareness to avoid topics or areas they know they're less productive in, and that they no longer need to be restricted by the community. Asking for additional sanctions would indicate to me that you aren't confident you can abide by the restriction; i.e. you aren't sure you can use your judgement—the opposite of what we want for eventually lifting sanctions. If you don't want to edit in those areas, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to have the ability to taken away from you. Giraffer (talk) 10:45, 6 May 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.

Long term abuse and harassment

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.

---

Long term harassment towards mainly me, but also other no-wiki sysops are targeted.

Constantly changing IP addresses. Please block IP (IP range), delete the harassment @ User talk:2A02:2121:347:9ACE:DDA:E4F7:F230:D6E6 and hide other revisions. Thanks! 1000mm (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello there. Need to revoke TPA. Thanks! –HirowoWiki (📝) 16:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

As said, long term harassment from this kid. Never stops. Long term ban for the constant changing IP/IP range is the only thing that works. 1000mm (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Finally, we're done here. TPA revoked. –HirowoWiki (📝) 16:51, 4 May 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.

Israel / Palestine CTOP AfD

Hi all, recently an AfD was started here regarding a Palestinian filmmaker who is tied up with conflict with the Palestinian Authority. It's quite obviously within the Israel / Palestine CTOP but it's attracting a lot of attention from non Extended-Confirmed accounts. I've gone and notified everyone who has commented on the AfD and who did not appear to be aware but I'm wondering if some other notice should be posted on the AfD itself. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:PIA#General sanctions upon related content, {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice|relatedcontent=yes}} on the talk page and {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes}} in the editnotice, I guess. Either that or just ECP the whole thing if it counts as within the conflict area. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

An ECP of the page is probably wise. It's getting a fair bit of attention from new users and I've already had to do some explaining regarding the CTOP notices I sent out to the non extended-confirmed participants. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In such cases, are the non-EC users' !votes stricken as they arrive, or do we rely on the closer to spot them and disregard? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd revert them and strike the ones that an extendedconfirmed editor has already responded to. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've struck through the !votes and comments on that AfD by non-ECR editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous user being extremely disruptive

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

---

This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.2.164, is being extremely disruptive.

They continuously make edit, claiming something when it’s not true, and then gets upset when edits get reverted.

They’re also attacking me.

They don’t appear to be stopping anytime soon.

If I was in charge, I would block them for disruptive behaviour and edits (but of course I can’t and never will). Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The removal of unsourced biographical information is not disruptive. WP:ALLMUSIC is not considered a good source for birthdates.

Where was the user attacking you? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In the revisions of the edits Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you point out which diff? Because I don't really see any edits of the IP suggesting an "attack". This one probably just shows frustration of being reverted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This subject is currently on both this board and AN/I. Agree there doesn't seem to be any attacks. IP and OP have been reverting a lot, but seem to have stopped. Don't think admin intervention is required at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Dipper Dalmatian has since been given a indef for incivility, so we can probably consider this closed (and 122's issue was solved too by someone sourcing what they asked for, even as DD tried to inexplicably shut down discussion of it). Nathannah • 📮 19:24, 7 May 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.

2025 India–Pakistan strikes and related articles

I have just protected the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes article to be movable by admins only, after a series of good faith but undiscussed moves. I have previously full protected Operation Sindoor after a CFORK was being repeatedly recreated at that title. But there are a plethora of related articles/titles that need to be a kept an eye on including:

• 2025 Pahalgam attack
• 2025 India–Pakistan standoff
• 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
• 2025 Indian missile strikes
• 2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan
• 2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir
• 2025 Indian missile strikes on Pakistan
• 2025 Indian strikes on Pakistan
• 2025 India-Pakistan strikes
• Operation Sindoor 2025
• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict

etc. Can more admins add these pages to their watchlists and NPPers keep an eye out for creation of content/POV forks? Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Even before the Pahalgam attack and the start of the war, it already seemed like we were experiencing a serious flare-up in IPA problems on wikipedia. I second the call for all hands on deck. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to create Katelyn Clampett (article currently protected from creation)

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 administrators! I would like to request that the protection from creation be lifted from Katelyn Clampett, which appears to have been implemented in 2009 after the article was deleted for not passing notability standards. I believe that the subject meets WP:GNG in 2025 given the amount of sources I was able to find referencing or focusing on her music career ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why that shouldn't be done after all this time. I haven't checked for notability, so please make sure that you've addressed the reasons for deletion given at the previous AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed protection from the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics

Please be advised of a proposal for community sanctions at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Safaraji is trolling after spamming

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.

---

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

Draft:1receipt is recently spamming for draft repeatedly. JustAces (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

What's your interest in this user, especially where your account is less than 2 weeks old, and what diffs do you have to support your claim? 331dot (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sfrarji was indeffed anyways for spam and well on their way to it anyways, didn't need to be taken here...@JustAces:, please remove that awful obstructive "WrugTub" text from your talk page; it's blocking navigation of it. Nathannah • 📮 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed it as I received no acknoweldgement from JustAces. Nathannah • 📮 02:21, 8 May 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 Hindu" page Criticism and Misinformation both the section Vandalized by User:SpacemanSpiff

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 page of 'The Hindu' user @SpacemanSpiff is censoring information by trying to omitting or removing the "Criticism" and "Misinformation" section content which has proper citation and multiple official sources.
• @SpacemanSpiff is threatening to block me after the guy vandalizing the page each time, the guy has some relation/lives in the place where the controversy is.
• I have added in Talk page of "The Hindu" regarding the same but no response from wiki community.

Username 111223 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 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.

Suspicious behavior by dormant admin account

Noticed a suspicious edit by an admin account that had previously been dormant for a significant time.

The account belonging to the admin Night Gyr appears to have vandalized an article about Mormons, removing information showing that the Mormon leadership had opposed a massacre of emigrants passing through their territory, and had specifically sent orders to allow the victims to pass unharmed.

The new state of the article makes it appear as if the killings were a direct action of the Mormon church, when in fact the leadership had opposed violence and sided with the victims against the militia.

What makes this behavior suspicious is that Night Gyr has no previous posts on these subjects, and no posts about religious topics whatsoever except to attempt to remove pages about Hindu history.

It’s bizarre that their account suddenly became active after an extended absence, specifically to vandalize this article, and no other actions.

Would someone please contact them to verify the security of their account, or to discuss why they so felt the need to return to vandalize the page and then disappear again?

Thanks 2600:1011:B178:5D32:B4B9:80F2:26D8:DBC9 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Your edits were likely reverted because you added information based on primary sources, which are not reliable for the purposes you are using them for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It's neither suspicious nor vandalism, and involved no use of administrative tools. An edit summary would have been helpful from Night Gyr, though. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You made an edit based on primary, possibly biased, sources. Night Gyr reverted that edit. That's not anything suspicious unless you're here to push a POV. Also note this is not vandalism; note that calling things that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not dormant, just editing less than I used to. Acroterion is correct that I could have done better to provide an edit summary. Interesting here that an IP address is responding to the removal of content added by another IP address. Have you considered registering an account and getting to know the way things are done here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Night Gyr: Welcome back comrade. jp×g🗯️ 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

AfD Backlog

There is a backlog of AfDs overdue for closing. By my count, 44 discussions over four days' logs; this is the most I've ever seen, and it has been growing for several days now. The denizens of AfD would really appreciate if some admins could pitch in to help resolve this. Toadspike [Talk] 05:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Backlog is mostly cleared now. – robertsky (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Someonefighter

As a result of an appeal, Someonefighter (talk · contribs)'s site ban is vacated and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed). The topic ban can be appealed in six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Someonefighter

Long term abuse and harassment, again

Long term harassment towards mainly me, but also other no-wiki sysops are sometimes targeted. Banned for all eternity @ no-wiki, where he posted nonsense about «Guds lapskaus» (English: God’s stew), here @ en-wiki he just ranomdly vandalizes writing God’s stew or Norwegian stew.

Constantly changing IP addresses. Please block IP and delete User talk:77.18.56.182, use Google translate to understand what he writes in Norwegian. Other edits should be reverted and possibly hidden. This user also needs TPA revoked immediately, see WP:AN#Long term abuse and harassment.

On top of that, please hide the revisions he made last time @ User talk:2A02:2121:348:77A2:FDEA:34CB:3E6D:423F.

Thanks! 1000mm (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The two other no-wiki sysops are harassed as well.

• User:Znuddel in this Special:Diff/1289612977
• User:Anne-Sophie Ofrim in this Special:Diff/1289613161

1000mm (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

LeBron James

Lebron James’ wiki has been defaced by vandals with racist slurs. GaelicSoxFan (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@GaelicSoxFan the defacement was live only for 3 minutes, and some 5 hours ago. If you are seeing it from somewhere else, it could have been a screenshot during those 3 minutes. If it is on here still, it could have been a cache somewhere between you and your internet service provider. – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

URGENT: Racial slurs appearing when one hovers over Africa

Resolved

I have no idea the technical reason why this is happening, but it's imperative that someone figures it out immediately. You're see what I mean if you hover your cursor over the Wikilink Africa.

An extremely persistent sockmaster has been running wild on this and a few other articles, mostly related to Black people, in recent days, making massive edits which are just repetitions of the n-word in all caps like this. For some reason, despite the fact that the edits have been reverted and revision-deleted, the hover-over continues to display this grossly insulting content. The situation was brought to my attention here. Would someone with the technical understanding to fix this please do so? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: The same racial slurs also appear when one hovers over LeBron James. We should probably do a systematic check of all the pages edited by this sockmaster (for starters, see the Africa article's contrib history going back to 13 November 2024) to check for further instances of this glitch. Generalrelative (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Fyi, purging doesn't seem to fix the issue. This may be an issue with Page Previews. The issue doesn't occur when you have WP:Popups enabled. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it was appearing for my popups for Africa before I purged it, although my recall could be off. CMD (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Whoever fixed the issue for Africa, thanks! Could you also do the same for LeBron James? Generalrelative (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

LeBron James's page preview seems OK now. I was looking at some old talk page discussions on MediaWiki about Page Previews, and a similar problem in the past was resolved by making a dummy/null edit and re-purging the page. I did those steps here, though I'm not sure if that's what ultimately fixed it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it's fixed now. Thanks. I went through the contrib history of Africa and looked at all the pages edited by the socks who had done this. I didn't see any more articles with the hover-over problem, so it looks like the issue has been resolved. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Generalrelative and @CMD, I just noticed the work you put in to trying to resolve the issue at Talk:Africa. Thanks for all you did, and thanks to the IP editors that brought this issue up. (Also, CMD -- I think you're right about the purging fixing the issue for Navigation Pop-ups. That extension probably just works differently than Page Preview for some reason.) On another note, it's a bit worrying that this issue apparently persisted for several hours, but I suppose that's an issue for another discussion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There was brief discussion of the technical issues involved here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Preview vandalism problems. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, helpful phab link. "purge and then make non-zero dummy edits or real edits to the WP:LEDE between manual purges. And give it time." Well, unfortunately I did the first and last steps, but missed the steps in between. CMD (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I came across Wikipedia:Help desk#How can I fix vandalism in a page preview (*not* the actual page) which seems to have been resolved, but is it related to the issues here? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the same problem. Maybe someone can confirm whether action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 will work for page previews (and perhaps why its use must be responsible). CMD (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the "responsible" part probably just means don't do it unnecessarily on pages (templates realistically) with lots of transclusions as you'll continually set up long queues. For beans reasons I won't give any examples, there might already be protections anyway but I can easily see it creating issues for admins if editors keep doing it with such pages. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this sort of thing what has also been happening at Talk:Battle of Helena? Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that Zhao Xintong that's linked on the main page had content in the page preview that was reverted 6 hours ago. I did a normal action=purge, one with forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 and another with forcelinkupdate=true using the API via Special:ApiSandbox. The first two didn't seem to do anything, but on the third, the preview was updated. forcerecursivelinkupdate should do the same thing as forcelinkupdate in updating link tables and other secondary data updates, so it might have just taken a few seconds, idk. Trim02 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Generalrelative:, @Aoi:, @Hog Farm:, @Acroterion:? Should we make an LTA case because the vandalism on Africa goes back to 8/3/23. The vandal is called “Saturnium119” 2600:100C:B0A7:AC00:E40E:A922:A414:6792 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality concern and template removal without discussion – FufuFafa

Hello, I am concerned about the neutrality of the article FufuFafa. I previously added the {{NPOV}} tag to indicate that the article may violate Wikipedia’s Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The article presents politically sensitive claims in a seemingly factual tone without proper context or strong reliable sources.

The subject of the article, a public figure, has explicitly denied the claims, yet the article currently implies their truth without clear attribution or balance. Despite this, the neutrality tag was removed without discussion or effort to address the issues.

I request that administrators review the article to evaluate its compliance with BLP and NPOV policies. Page protection might also be necessary if the neutrality concerns persist.

Thank you for your attention. 2001:448A:10E8:3453:FC6E:758E:AAFF:29F (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As per the explanation in the removal of the tag, "revert drive-by tag; no explanation of what changes are requested". Please use the article talk page to discuss changes. I also suggest you ditch the AI and use your own words. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added it to the discus page to not remove it. Please check. Naruminato (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to split and restore page history

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.

---

• United Peoples' Party (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United People's Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone moved United Peoples' Party (Bangladesh) and turned it into a new article. Please split the edit history, restore this version and move it back to the original title. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 10 May 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.

Unblock request by Sandbh on behalf of Eric Scerri (User:Scerri)

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

---

I’m submitting this request on behalf of Dr. Eric Scerri User:Scerri, whose account has been blocked since 2008, on the following grounds: "Spam / advertising-only account".

He is a widely recognized authority in the history and philosophy of chemistry and the periodic table.

He made 13 edits in 2005; 12 in 2006; and 21 in 2008. These edits were to correct his own biographical details; add resources, external links, and references to his own work; some typo fixes; and the deletion of some new age content in the [[History of the Periodic Table]] article.

He recently submitted an unblock request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scerri but, not being sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia unblock procedure, his request was denied on procedural grounds.

A subsequent unblock request posted by him to his talk page failed to gain traction.

I posted another unblock request on behalf of User: Scerri to the same talk page, including some history and discussion of Dr Scerri’s circumstances, and WP policy. This request attracted some interest, including a suggestion for an admin to weigh in. On March 30th 2025, @DMacks: indicated he would consider an unblock if it included a restriction against self-citing without prior discussion in which Scerri participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned. I've heard no further from DMacks.

Dr Scerri is happy to accept the restrictions proposed by DMacks i.e. no self-citing without prior discussion in which they participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this unblock request.

Conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

IMO any unblock should also require that they only use the talk page to propose changes to their bio on the talk page via edit requests etc rather than directly editing it whatever they are citing. Maybe also to Foundations of Chemistry. WP:BANEX would apply of course. While I'm a strong believer that COI doesn't forbid editing in the general case, once an editor has shown they don't know when their COI edits are okay and when they aren't, things change a bit. While it does seem that the main concern with Scerri's editing is their tendency to add citations to their own work, it just doesn't seem a good idea to say general editing of their bio is okay when an editor has trouble recognising COI problems. Also I'm slightly concerned as worded the proposal seems to suggest that if Scerri is told on RSN that a source they are citing is reliable, they're going to think they can then use it all over even when they are just adding it to stuff already supported by citations. But I guess most RSN discussions of specific sources do make clear context matters and more importantly provided Scerri always makes clear what and why they are asking, this probably shouldn't be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Ditto what Nil Einne said. Restrictions are required for me to support, along the lines that Nil Einne already laid out. I would further suggest he should be able to appeal the restrictions here after ~500 edits or 1 year, whichever comes last. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Scerri needs to say in their own words and from their own account that they agree to the terms. While you may advise them, Sandbh, and that is truly helpful, you cannot speak entirely on their behalf as we don't know whether they in fact agree. While i'm not yet sure how I feel about unblocking at all, I think any successful unblock would need to be contingent on them avoiding self citing but also using edit requests in areas where they have a vested interest. I'd be curious to hear from the editor why they all of a sudden want to edit again after 17 years. Star Mississippi 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. In reviewing this unblock request, the following logged-out statement by User:Scerri, recently made here on their Talk page, should be considered: I recognize the general preference for using talk pages or formal edit requests in autobiographical articles, but I must be candid: given my professional commitments, I simply do not have the time to engage in back-and-forths on talk pages or through formal edit request channels. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This was my main reason for declining their request. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, Star Mississippi, JoJo Anthrax, and 331dot: Thank you for your comments. I will ask Dr Scerri if he could post here, and say in his own words and from his own account that he agrees to the unblock terms, plus anything else he would like to add. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

He's blocked, so he can't post here, but he can post on his user talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll ask him to post on his user talk page, and will let editors here know when he has done that. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Having not heard anymore from Dr Scerri, I've just now emailed him to ascertain his position. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've heard from Dr Scerri, and he intends to post to the User: Scerri talk page. I'll post an alert here. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Dr Scerri has posted his unblock request to his talk page. Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

[...] while I have occasionally made factual updates via IP edits over the years — mainly to keep my publication details current [...] My reading of this is edits made post-2008. If so, I don't think Scerri realized that they were evading their block by making edits as an IP user. Assuming my assumption is correct, a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable. (Hopefully I am misunderstanding the situation.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I also read this as (non-malicious) block evading. Overall this seems like someone that wants to make good faith contributions to the community. a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable - agree. It also seems like Scerri is interested in writing an encyclopedia but not really in learning about our community norms. With that in mind I would like to see that his account is restricted though I do not have the experience to suggest the best restrictions. Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A one account restriction is unnecessary. It is not an absolute requirement and here it is obviously not going to change anything. —Alalch E. 23:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would support based on their answer Sandbh linked above. They answer the questions I raised to my satisfaction and in their own voice. Star Mississippi 23:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1 —Alalch E. 10:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. A brief personal reflection, if I may. I’ve occasionally made Wikipedia edits as an IP editor—typically while using a public computer (such as at my local Apple store), when I’ve spotted a mistake on a page and didn’t want to log in for account security reasons. There have also been times when I’ve made trivial corrections, such as fixing typos or formatting, without bothering to log in.

These kinds of edits strike me as practical, harmless, and entirely within the norms of good-faith contribution. I mention this to emphasize that IP editing isn’t inherently suspicious or evasive—context matters.

As for the unblock request: I think WP:ROPE is worth bearing in mind. The principle is that if an editor has been blocked but is willing to return in good faith, we don’t need to burden them with excessive preconditions. If issues arise again, the community has ample tools to respond. But if no problems occur, then we’ve welcomed back a constructive contributor—which is what we want.

Dr Scerri has acknowledged past issues, stated a willingness to work within Wikipedia’s norms, and clarified his intent to use the talk page and edit request systems for any COI-related material. That seems sufficient. Adding a restriction like “no IP editing” could be seen as both unnecessary and overreaching, especially given that such behavior is already subject to routine scrutiny like it is for any editor.

Noting my own COI (set out below), I support the proposed unblock as is.

My conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this WP:ROPE I think that holds good sway here. As for the IP editing. I have also done what you described but doing it specifically because you actual account is blocked is a another matter. Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response.

I agree entirely that IP editing to bypass a block is a different matter entirely—one that rightly raises serious concern. My intent in mentioning IP editing was not to excuse evasion, but to suggest that occasional IP edits, post-unblock and with no evasive intent, may not need to be preemptively restricted. If problematic patterns were to emerge, we already have mechanisms to deal with that, hence the relevance of WP:ROPE.

My broader point was that we shouldn’t presume all IP edits are suspect—particularly if they’re isolated, minor, and in good faith. Of course, if Dr Scerri were unblocked and later engaged in problematic IP editing, I would fully support appropriate action. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am probably not the only editor who has added that page to their Watchlist, so perhaps you could tell the Doctor that IP edits to that page are unlikely to be missed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, JoJo Anthrax. That’s a fair and helpful point—and I trust Dr Scerri will appreciate the level of attention and the importance of maintaining full transparency going forward. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock as per 'Star Mississippi'. User:Scerri was blocked in 2008 it's been seventeen years such a long period. I think with a second chance, we can allow him to demonstrate his ability to edit constructively. IAmAtHome (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I think 17 years is enough time to learn a lesson and come back in good faith. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unconditionally, and I feel that any block that's more than ten years old should be automatically rescinded.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unconditionally, and immediately. Christ, seventeen years and he actually went through all this pain to ask for an official unblock? Isn't this supposed to be what we want people to do? We should encourage them to do it, not punish them. jp×g🗯️ 05:10, 9 May 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 User "Skitash" is manipulating the reality!

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.

---

1- In the page of Persian Gulf, although I kindly informed the user @Skitash about the name of Arvand Rud to be added, at least once, he removed it every time, and this is not acceptable.

2- As we know, a Wikipedia Page, is not a NEWS page. The news about the future speech of the President Trump has nothing to do with a historical truth to be added in the page! I have removed the news, and he added every time.

3- The waters in southwest Iran have always been known as the Persian Gulf and have never been officially called anything else, he added another name, and I have to undo it everytime!

I need help. PayamAvarwand (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

1. We follow WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia.

2. That's sourced and noteworthy content, especially for a section about the Persian Gulf naming dispute.

3. "Arabian Gulf" was added to the lede as a result of an RfC. I'm unsure why you decided to ignore the invisible note and proceed with deleting it anyway.

4. You've been edit warring and have been reported to WP:AN3 accordingly. Skitash (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You've removed sourced information and an alternate name decided by an RFC. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Point of order - it was not PayamAvarwand who originally ignored the invisible note and removed "Arabian Gulf" from the lede, it was @Amiyn: - [42]. That said, OP seems to have a thing for WP:THETRUTH as opposed to WP:VNT, judging by their edit summaries. I have fully protected Persian Gulf for 72 hours. (Note once this protection expires, the existing semiprotection will need to be re-added). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Note I just re-checked and saw this. Yeah, this is not on. Blocked OP for 24 hours for edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit of a over reaction to a small edit war?. skittish only has 1 warning regarding it and yet it gets posted to admin noticeboard and the page gets full protection for 72 over one user. There is no dispute resolution or recommended talk page. idk your protocol but it seemed like a lot. not trying to stir anything up, I'm just confused. thanks JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Post-closure, but to clarify: it was two users. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 9 May 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.

• Footnote: OP created a very obvious sockpuppet account and is now indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Footnote to the footnote: CU indicated the potential sock may have been a Joe job - however the user's conduct otherwise has made it clear that indef was still the correct call. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The User: Skitash is an Anti-Persian!

Block evasion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Is there anybody to control the user @Skitash? As you see here, and here, he is trying to hide and destroy the persian or iranian titles! e.g. Arvand Rud I ask you to check this seriously please. 2001:9E8:F583:9C00:353F:5D31:1022:2D82 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Are you familiar with PayamAvarwand? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Quack. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:20, 10 May 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 close AfD: Gambella University

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 AfD discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambella University has been open for 7 days. I believe the discussion may be ready for closure. Requesting review and closure by an uninvolved administrator. Thank you. Wieditor25 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not how things work. Seven days is a minimum, not a maximum, and discussions can be left open for more than seven days — and this page is not for requesting simple closures of AFD discussions anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still learning the rules. Wieditor25 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 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.

India Pakistan war2025

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.

---

India all 3 wings showing damage of all their airbases kindly add in new version. 174.94.10.8 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an administrator matter, please use the relevant article talk page to discuss changes. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Non-free content

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tales_logo.png

Non-free content (a copyrighted and trademarked television anthology logo owned by a corporation) was uploaded without the proper categorization. Posting this to notify administrators so that it can either be deleted or supplemented with the proper templates and disclaimers. Darkknight2149 15:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The image is uploaded on Commons and not locally here. Any i ssues would need to be addressed there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It was uploaded at Commons based on it being below the US threshold of originality (text and simple shapes only) and considered ineligibility for copyright. You might disagree with this but that would have to be discussed at Commons. Masem (t) 15:51, 11 May 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.

Russification of non-Russian names and toponyms

A person, using several accounts (Sojetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Erledigungs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

WMF restores access to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

• Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Of general interest to administrators - per an update at WP:VPWMF from Joe Sutherland, the WMF has restored access to the article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. This follows a ruling of the Indian Supreme Court setting aside the Delhi High Court's ruling that the article violated sub judice rules, as reported on by Reuters and other outlets. Good news! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

What was the status of this article before it was restored by this office action? Deleted, oversighted, and protected from editing? Or was it somewhat less strict? Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Office protected with a big notice saying basically "We're sorry, but due to a court order, this article is restricted." Worgisbor (congregate) 05:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend: This was the status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The previous revisions were oversighted, yes. See Wikipedia talk:Oversight § Request copy of WMF-office protected page. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Please delete redirect

At this page, it says "The result of the discussion was to be determined by Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 1#RFC: Name of alleged killer". Since the Request for Comment is now closed as exclude, should the redirect now be deleted? If this is not the correct forum, would someone be able to please let me know the correct forum? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The RfC was closed by Chetsford as "no consensus to include the name of the suspect and no consensus to exclude it". I assume the redirect itself is not affected by the no consensus closure? Some1 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Some1:, actually, the page says "If the discussion there results in a consensus to exclude the subject's name, this redirect should then be deleted". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The RfC did not find "consensus to exclude the subject's name" though. It found no consensus to include or exclude the name. Some1 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to mostly agree with Some1 based on the wording of the close on the redirect. With no consensus, the state of the article returned to where it was before the dispute, with the name excluded. A stable version of a redirect isn't quite a 1:1 comparison with the stable version of an article. So the effect on the redirect seems kind of murky to me, but the redirect was up during the whole process (with the notice that there was a discussion ongoing). Also, by removing the notice of the discussion, and reverting it to a bog standard redirect, the closer chose to leave it up while waiting for the article RFC consensus, which suggests to me that the redirect being active is better argued as the stable version.

So I think we have the correct results implemented now: the removal of the name from the article, but the continued existence of a redirect, based on both being the stable versions before the no consensus. But it's certainly not a slam dunk; I don't think the conclusion is obvious, just the interpretation I think is closer to the rules and spirit. (I did not participate in either RFC). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

While the inclusion or non-inclusion of the redirect or, indeed the determination of what constituted the stable version of the article, is outside the scope of the RfC to identify, I generally agree with CoffeeCrumbs' analysis of the situation. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Abusive postings by IP-hopper

See Special:Contributions/49.230.61.5 and the histories of the pages the IP has edited. Each time they are blocked, they immediately switch to a different IP address and continue. It's been going on for some weeks. Can we do anything about this, like set up an edit filter? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 there is an edit filter already. Will let the person(s) working on that filter know about this thread. – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Reporting User:Userbvvc

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.

---

Re-reporting User:Userbvvc as suggested by asilvering in the last report dated 9 May 2025. Similar disruptive edits again today after a 4-day break. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:12, 13 May 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.

Can I block this range without too much collateral damage?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=49.224.64.216%2F17&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 a lot of bad edits, some serous BLP ones. Might be a school. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be Special:Contributions/49.224.0.0/17. Depending on the situation, I think you can justify almost any block. But there's no reason to make a block harsher than necessary, and if it's just logged-out vandalism from school kids, you could probably leave account creation enabled. Most of them probably wouldn't try to create an account. Also, there doesn't seem to be much of anyone on Special:Contributions/49.224.0.0/18. Why block the entire /17? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

What range should I block? I clearly don't know enouigh about IP ranges, although I should! Doug Weller talk 14:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a IP range calc on toolforge. If you copy in all the relevant IPs it tells you the smallest range that covers all of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Qaboos_bin_Said#RfC on sexuality

There's no problem with a closure review here, but it would be better with an opening statement written by a human. I note that Itshrabkhan's contribution to the original RfC was also AI-generated. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Itshrabkhan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The AI has done a fantastic job writing a report here, Itshrabkhan. Would you like to have a go doing it yourself now? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear others' opinions on this closure. This close was previously discussed on my talk page here. Personally, I am not actually certain that this request was written by AI, it seems like a more formal extension of this editor's style. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Happy to be disproven, but I put the text through several different detectors, all of which came back at 100%. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! In any case I'm sure Itshrabkhan can rephrase and reformat it as necessary to relaunch a discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I once got an 80% certainty rating of AI authorship for an essay I wrote 15 years ago. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is actually AI-generated content and I don't see any problem with that unless I'm missing something, and I'm happy to know why. Nevertheless, I'll recreate the opening statement. Itshrabkhan (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Not withstanding the AI, I'm concerned about the exhibit of WP:PREC and WP:SPA behaviour. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Adding a null comment here so this doesn't get archived again. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Rewritten request

Qaboos_bin_Said (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Itshrabkhan‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [[43]]

Reasoning: This is a request to review the consensus of the RFC in Sultan Qaboos bin Said's talk page. An RFC of whether to include rumours about Qaboos sexuality in the article. I believe that the outcome of the RFC needs a review because it was a single mind consensus whereas it should be how the voting ended.

The exclusion was based on a solid arguments and wiki-policies. For instance, sources stated that “Qaboos was widely believed by Omanis and Gulf Arabs to be homosexual” where in fact believed by only (3) Omanis and by saying “everyone knows about that” as the same sources stated, claims are claims and amount nothing than gossips or rumours.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to include allegations unless there are sources stating facts rather than just claims, and that this is an issue of any significance in the country which I don’t think it is. It is essentially dishonest to act as asserting the existence of rumour is somehow distinct from asserting the truth of that rumour.

In sources context, one of the sources quotes from a source that has been previously removed as unreliable, other is based solely on claims from only three individuals, which doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:UNDUE, another one is explicitly states that these are rumours, and the last one appears to recycle the same claims from these sources.

Non-participants

• Endorse: I don't think I would have dared to close this either way myself, but do I think the closure is correct, and the closure statement furthermore provides useful guidance on what and how should or shouldn't be included in the article. (FWIW, I thought cagliost made a particularly persuasive argument, and also refuted many of the opposing points, which largely clinched it for me.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Participants

• Overturn – in my view, this closure seemed like a supervote that didn't seriously consider any of the exclude arguments, because there was in fact reasonable refutations of those who supported inclusion. It is generally considered not okay to out someone as supposedly gay, or even hint at it, regardless of whether they are living or deceased; especially when the sources explicitly state it is rumors and speculation. This practice is widely seen as disrespectful, and Wikipedia has always seen this practice as disrespectful. This argument was not reasonably refuted, and furthermore, it was stated that, Many of the contributors to this RFC and the previous ones are motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I took offense at that remark, and I can assure you my exclude argument was not the least bit "anti-homosexual bigotry". That comment alone should have disqualified their !vote. The closer cites WP:NOTCENSORED as being a relevant factor, but doesn't explain how it is relevant. No one that argued for exclusion said the content should be censored, so NOTCENSORED is a very weak argument for inclusion, because the inclusion of disputed content isn't primarily based on NOTCENSORED, and those arguments citing NOTCENSORED should have been given less weight. The closer also cites source reliability as being relevant, but seemingly ignores Pincretes accurate analysis of the sources. The most reliable way for Wikipedia to report someone’s sexual orientation is in their own words, and we don't have that here, and someone else’s purported sexuality is not owed to the public, nor is it encyclopedic, when it is based on rumors, gossip and speculation. Both the 2017 and 2020 discussions got it right to exclude, and this one also got it right to exclude, based on the arguments for exclusion, and the numerical advantage, if consensus had been determined properly. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The opinion of prior participants in general is often useless for discussions like this one anyway, but here goes. The previous RfCs were largely based on BLP grounds, but the subject died in 2020, so that no longer applies, and using the consensus of these previous RfCs as if they should influence this 2025 one is grasping at straws. The rumours about his sexual life have been discussed in reputable sources since at least 2004[44] and indicate the political implications. This is not some idle celebrity gossip and not based on one source or one person, but a persistent claim (which should thus not be presented as a truth, but as a claim) which influenced or indicated the image the Sultan of Oman had with (parts of) his population, on a highly contentious topic in his country. The opposition was mainly based on "but they are only rumours", which no one denied, but isn't a reason to exclude things. See e.g. Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby, William McMahon or Jörg Haider, or the featured article Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Fram (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  When I asked what the "political implications" were, no one could describe them, apparently those were unfounded rumors as well, considering he ruled for thirty years. And yes, this is some idle celebrity gossip that had no significant impact on his life, and there is no context provided at all in the article how it influenced or tarnished his image with the population. And since you invoked other stuff, there is an ongoing RfC at Mustafa Kemal Atatürk about persistent rumors about an alleged affair he had, which is leaning towards exclusion. I guess it just depends on what the rumors and gossips are, i.e. someones purported sexual orientation, and whether that gossip is suitable for inclusion. BLP states: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, but when it's a BDP, we suddenly abandon those standards in favor of spreading titillating and unfounded claims about a deceased person. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is no indication that the Ataturk / Gabor alleged relation had any potential political implications, or was punishable by 3 years of imprisonment if confirmed. The alleged (or outright stated) homosexuality of the sultan and the discrepancy with the official policies led to friction though, see e.g. this, or the actual title of the article from the Middle East Review of International Affairs, "Assessing the political stability of Oman". Whether you agree that it potentially had political implications or not is not really important: we go with the sources, and this is an impeccable, peer-reviewed source which reports on the rumours in the context of such implications. This is not some sensationalist tabloid (just like the many newspapers who reported on it, from le Nouvel Obs I cited above to things like Le Figaro, aren't sensationalist tabloids either), these are respectable sources which you can't so easily dismiss. Fram (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  No matter how you frame your argument, it's wrong to out someone based on gossip and rumors, it's not a widely accepted practice that respects the private choice of a person, living or deceased. On the other hand, it is a widely accepted practice on Wikipedia, that just because content can be sourced, doesn't automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion, and this is very much one of those instances. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• As mentioned, I've discussed this with a couple other editors at my talk page here in some detail, but am happy to answer any specific questions about this close. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  • It would be great to get an opinion from an editor who was not previously involved in the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite protections that were supposed to expire?

Hi, quite new to Wikipedia as an editor, but have been getting familiar to the Protection policy since about 2023. I've been looking through the Request for page protection archives over the past several months and noticed there were some articles intended to be protected temporary, but were somehow never set to expire. Examples include:

• Avocado, intended to be semi-protected for one year in 2016
• Golden Gate, intended to be semi-protected for 10 days in 2017
• Qeparo, intended to be semi-protected for 3 days in 2023
• Maldives, intended to be semi-protected for one month in 2024
• Fanum (streamer), intended to be semi-protected for 6 months in 2024

Was it a last minute change from temporary to indefinite, or the expiry dates just weren't set? Do you think you can either unprotect those articles to see how it goes, or do you think the protections are still necessary? A similar issue happened with the Cambodia article; that was accidently semi-protected indefinitely in 2018, but was unprotected in 2023 following this discussion. However, the article was semi-protected again just 23 days later when disruptive editing returned. BriDash9000 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• You should ask the admins who made the changes. In the past, I have changed my mind on protection after posting one time duration, and deciding a longer one was more appropriate, but it isn't a common thing. It might have been a mistake (either the protection duration, or the comment not stating the proper time) or it might have been a change of heart once they got to the page, but the admin corps as a whole isn't going to know about these individual instances, only the admin that performed the work will know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

As stated, probably just mistakes. Probably if there are other situations like these where there is a discrepancy, putting in a request at RFPP for a downgrade in protection would be the best way forward for the future. As for now, pinging Ymblanter, Anachronist, and Daniel Case per the above. Super Goku V (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Concerning Avocado, I intended to apply indefinite protection and I applied indefinite protection. We can discuss whether it is a good idea to unprotect the article after 9 years protection, but I do not see any mistakes here. The one year applied to unlocked move protection, which I did not touch. Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What the heck is it about avacados that made them such a vandalism magnet? Good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well... I had come to learn that there are haters of the fruit to the point that such vandalism isn't surprising to me. – robertsky (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of it may be related to memes too, such as (but not limited to) the "free sha vaca doo" meme. That said, I'm not going to go back through the page history to figure out what it was at the time or historically (because I'm lazy). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe people just don't like Otis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have lifted the protection on Maldives Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

All things being equal, WP:PROT is certainly one of the more esoteric area of the project to immerse oneself in. For two years. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

MappilaKhrais

Hi regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MappilaKhrais

Do you think https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter might help to preemptively stop this guy? This guy have been vandalizing wiki for years. Disruptive edits by this user is such a pain to other wiki editors.

I think they will not stop. We need to take some sort of actions here.

is there a way for admins to get alerted - when edit from new account ( from that IP range) are made on specific articles or specific user-agent ?

or multiple accounts are created from same IP range?

or do you think its appropriate to block that IP range all together Cinaroot (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi there, proposals for AbuseFilters against a LTA, according to the notice on WP:EFR cannot be made public. The page says - "Private filters should not be discussed in detail. If you wish to discuss creating an LTA filter, or changing an existing one, please instead email details to wikipedia-en-editfilterslists.wikimedia.org." I don't really have the knowledge to provide you with opinions on a creation of LTA filter against a frequent socker from the start of 2024 though. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 12:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Username

Hello, I want to change my username but I am indefinitely blocked on ruwiki. Is this a problem? Leo^talk 11:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Leo, no it shouldn't be; see WP:CHUN for details! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it may be an issue as global renamers routinely request that you deal with the block in that wiki first unless you can reason out why not in your request. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's OK as it's wp.ru. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Leo^talk 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Concern about Daft Elephant’s collapse of active RfC on Talk:Femosphere

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.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Concern about Daft Elephant’s collapse of active RfC on Talk:Femosphere

Update: Since my original post, the RfC was re-opened by one editor, then re-collapsed unilaterally by Daft Elephant a second time, despite constructive engagement from multiple third-party editors. A second editor has since reopened it. Due to the repeated collapses and escalating behavior, the matter has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and is now being discussed at ANI.

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 15:27, 14 May 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.

Mauriziok Creating Copies of Articles

This is currently pending at MFD and is both a content issue and a conduct issue. User:Mauriziok has apparently created approximately 300 user space articles that are copies from article space to user space, which is not permitted.

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

Mauriziok was asked about these copies nine months ago by User:Bri but did not answer. Bri has now nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300 pageant drafts in userspace .

The content issue will be taken care of at MFD, but the creation of these copies is an attribution violation, and is otherwise not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• I accidentally filed this at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI and have changed the notices to indicate that it was filed at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Userspace Ban

I recommend that Mauriziok be topic-banned from creating subpages in user space.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I was wondering if something like this was appropriate, too. I'm glad that RM took the initiative. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Very strange behaviour. They've recently blanked a handful, so I've U1'd. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support They had promised not to do this again. See User talk:Mauriziok#Copying within Wikipedia, and Userspace content forks and User talk:Mauriziok#Userspace content forks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: this can not be technically enforced, if this ban is enacted and gets violated such that it needs enforcing, the options will be to block the user from the entire User: namespace, or siteblock them. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the details, User:Xaosflux - If the ban is violated, I will be satisfied with blocking the editor from User space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Mauriziok is slowly getting it and has tagged 100+ pages for U1. Hundreds more need to be deleted. I'm interested in a resolution to this that does not require a topic ban. See the discussion in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300 pageant drafts in userspace. If the needed responses aren't given in the following few days, I will support a topic ban. —Alalch E. 13:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Of the 218 biographies that were listed by Bri, I counted 22 that have become red links. That means that approximately 193 of them are still there. Also, Mauriziok has written, in response to my Delete All vote at MFD, Not all the drafts should be removed. I'm voluntarily removing all inactive drafts, as well as templates and bios. This appears to be a case of I Didn't Hear That. They haven't explained what sort of activity calls for keeping hundreds of drafts that are somewhere between active and inactive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  After a few days, I don't think that a satisfactory resolution is going to be reached without some action. —Alalch E. 23:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, @Alalch E. Excuse me, I was checking the page https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Mauriziok/2 to see if I could check the latest version of each of the workshops, but for example, the link in the title of each one takes me to the deleted workshop, and I can't see anything there. In the case of the date, it gives me a permission error, indicating that "you do not have permission to view metadata of deleted history entries, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers." So, the only thing I can see through that XTools link is the list of workshop names. I'd like to know how I can access the workshops I was editing. I mentioned earlier that I was working on workshops for Miss Venezuela, Mr. Handsome Venezuela, Miss & Mr. Tourism Venezuela, Mr. Universe Venezuela, Miss & Mr. Sports Venezuela, and Gentleman Venezuela; but they were also deleted. The goal would be to publish them once I finish improving the workshops and then be able to permanently delete them appropriately.  For my part, I've been gradually eliminating workshops, eventually eliminating more than 200. Yesterday, I decided to continue eliminating more workshops in an orderly manner, but suddenly, practically all of them were eliminated. I had indicated that it would take me about a week to eliminate 300 workshops, but seeing that the number was three or four times bigger, the time required would be longer. If you could please tell me how I should proceed in this case. Thank you. Mauriziok (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is confusing. Are you asking for undeletion to userspace, in the midst of a discussion of a userspace restriction? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Bri I'm asking that only the workshops I was recently working on be reinstated, not the ones I've already finished working on or the ones I was never able to, which is the vast majority. In the case of the workshops I'm asking to be reinstated, they don't need to be reactivated all at once; they can be done beauty pageant by beauty pageant, once I've improved the series enough to be published in the articles, with the workshops properly removed. Mauriziok (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's right, you get a handy list of all your user drafts which you worked on, and, of course, you can not see deleted content. The deletion of the pages did not destroy the record of what you were actively working on, what you were working on in the past, and what you intended to work on but never got to it, and you can reference this list and request undeletion on a per-page basis, but it is not appropriate to request undeletion of whole series of pages. Try asking for one to be undeleted, then work on it (if it's really needed for you to improve the article), incorporate the changes into the live article, and request deletion. But in the future, please try to implement the changes directly in articles as opposed to creating copies and syncing the live article with your userspace copy. While I understand that the way you have been doing it feels natural to you, you were definitely on the extreme end of relying on this style of editing, and have significantly overstretched the bounds of reasonableness. After the MfD was started, you were showing signs that you are dealing with the problem but you were slow relative to the tempo of the MfD, with its standard duration of 7 days; you did not set an alternative schedule, and you were not sufficiently responsive. Even if you are topic banned per this discussion, I will support lifting the restriction once you can explain how the problem will not reoccur. I might also change my recommendation here to opposing a topic ban before the discussion is closed.

  Separately, you are not using edit summaries very much. When you bring the changes over from the copy, enter a suitable edit summary describing the resulting changes. Please see Help:Edit summary. —Alalch E. 15:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @Alalch E. How can I request a recovery of a draft? Mauriziok (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  You can ask the admin who deleted the page or at WP:REFUND. An admin responding at REFUND technically probably shouldn't accept, but... @BD2412 What do you think about undeletion on a per-page basis when the page is one of the hundreds of user's drafts deleted via a mass-MfD because of WP:COPIES? Presumably the editor would like to resume what they were working or intending to work on, incorporate the changes into the live article, and tag with U1. —Alalch E. 02:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  If you mean undeletion through the WP:RFU process, that would be unavailable for pages deleted through an XFD, as these were. In theory, you would have to ask the deleting administrator on a page-by-page basis. Of course, this discussion could result in a consensus that modifies that general rule for this set of articles. BD2412 T 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. So the only way that exists at the moment is to ask the administrator who deleted the page? Mauriziok (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  If you want a page undeleted and you're not an admin, you need to ask an admin to undelete it, and the first instance in such cases is to go to the deleting admin. For a potential other option read BD2412's reply above yours. —Alalch E. 05:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Robert McClenon.—Alalch E. 23:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that Mauriziok has not edited since 30 April. Since non-admins cannot see deleted edits, we can't see if they nominated any articles for speedy deletion that have now been deleted. But they haven't made any comments at the MFD, or here, and they haven't made any edits to articles that still exist (e.g, are still tagged for U1). So there are still about 195 biographies nominated in the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think the biographies and their talkpages have been deleted per the biographies list that I made, all redlinks now. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Until now, I didn't know how to discard drafts, so I had to organize them quickly because of the amount. I request that I continue editing the drafts, with the understanding that once I improve a few, I'll incorporate the deletion request to prevent them from accumulating, so I can continue editing others. Thank you. Mauriziok (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You still have not shown that you are able to organize your userspace. Pages blanked by you but not tagged U1 for starters, even though this was brought to your attention in this AN case days ago. I do not support continuing on this path. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bri Ok, these drafts have now been properly deleted. Mauriziok (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see about 24 pages still present. Are those copies of articles?

• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela
• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela 2019
• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela 2021
• Mauriziok/Caballero Venezuela 2022
• Mauriziok/Female national beauty pageant delegates 2
• Mauriziok/List of Caballero Venezuela editions
• Mauriziok/List of Caballero Venezuela runners-up and finalists
• Mauriziok/List of Caballero Venezuela titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Chica 2001 titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Earth Miss Venezuela titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Señorita Deporte Venezuela titleholders
• Mauriziok/List of Señorita and Mister Deporte Venezuela editions
• Mauriziok/Men's Venezuelan pageant templates
• Mauriziok/Michell Castellanos
• Mauriziok/Reinas y Reyes de Venezuela
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2011
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2012
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2013
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2014
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2015
• Mauriziok/Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela 2016
• User:Mauriziok/Señorita and Mister Deporte Venezuela

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Blanked userspace pages

Should remaining, blanked userspace pages listed here be tagged G7 speedy delete? Is it proper for me to do this? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:G7 does not apply to blanked pages by the user in user space. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, is it U1? I'm not sure ... maybe I just should stay away from this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

A blanked(-by-the-user) user page is generally, IIRC, considered a de facto U1 request by the user, provided the page otherwise qualifies for U1 (i.e. it isn't a userified article). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No. People blanking pages in their userspace is not a request to delete them, they may like to have blank user page or empty a sandbox page before returning to it later or... Userspace pages should be deleted upon explicit request, but not because of blanking. Fram (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Change to the functionaries team, May 2025

At his request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Nguyentrongphu

• User talk:Nguyentrongphu

This is the talk page of a user that was indeffed 4 years ago. They also happen to be an admin on Vietnamese WP. The talk page seems to be being used a fair bit as a place where vi.wp editors they have blocked on vi.wp appeal to them - although Nguyentrongphu doesn't respond. Should the page be protected? DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Not only that, but an IP restored (and responded to in Vietnamese) content by Nguyentrongphu that Nguyentrongphu had removed several years ago. I've reverted the page to Nguyentrongphu's last edit and semi-protected it as the only purpose for the talk page now is for them to appeal if they ever desire to (note I've also restored a declined unblock request that they removed several years ago in violation of WP:REMOVED that nobody previosly caught). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

From these two "appeals", it looks like the semi-protection by The Bushranger may not be enough. Full? 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Possible error with mass message regarding revoked autopatrol

Hi, I was hoping some other admins could take a look at the situation that led to Boleyn being falsely informed that their autopatrolled right has been revoked. See User talk:Boleyn#Suspension of autopatrolled permission due to inactivity. Given that it's a mess message and they have been an active editor, I'm concerned this mass message may have been incorrectly sent to others. I'd appreciate input from other admins on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@JJMC89, all yours. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see some comments on their talk page that seem to imply that other editors have received this notification via email if they have alternate accounts (which makes sense because I'd imagine most people with legit alts use the same email for them). If it was an alt account that had the perm removed, I'd imagine the notification would've been posted on that account's talk page instead, so that still doesn't explain what went on here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Although, upon closer examination, it seems only Rosiestep mentioned emails. JBW got it on their talk page [45]. Now I'm wondering why things were set up this way and how that even works. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There are about three threads on this matter:

• User talk:JJMC89#Why revoke me?
• User talk:JJMC89#Hallucination?
• User talk:JJMC89#Removing autopatrolled?

Basically, some users have WP:VALIDALT accounts, which were given the autopatrolled right some time ago, but have not used it recently. These accounts were to have been warned about impending revocation, but the message was sent to the primary account. The boilerplate message did not, however, state which account was eligible to have the right revoked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Four, but I just closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Related?_revocation_of_autopatrolled in lieu of this. @Clovermoss, more on the process is here if helpful. Star Mississippi 22:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That last link seems to imply it happens when the alt's talk page redirects to the real account, so that explains my confusion surrounding the how. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeap. Probably a user talk redirect from the alt's talk page to the main's talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Boleyn2 and Boleyn3 had autopatrolled revoked. Since both have their user talk page redirected to Boleyn's, MassMessage followed the redirect when posting the message intended for those two alternate accounts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The message should say explicitly (and preferably in bold to stand out) from which account the autopatrolled right has been removed, instead of just "your account". That would answer most people's questions straight away. Fram (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Phab:T394413 has been created to help with this. CMD (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Revoke old confirmed groups

The following users were granted indefinite confirmed rights by an event coordinator more than 10 days ago, in violation of the rules for use of event coordinator access:

Should their illegitimate "confirmed" accesses be revoked? (I'm an admin so could do so myself, but figured it would be wiser to post here before revoking 78 users' permissions) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: some of those editors have 0 edits (eg. Kiritusu) Huldra (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to revoking the confirmed flags. If any of these editors made ten edits today, they'd immediately get autoconfirmed since their accounts are per se older than 4 days. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

True, but until they make 10 edits they have rights they would not have had had someone not breached our rules. And I don't see why we should allow that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be too pedantic about 10 days, nor use the term illegitimate. However, looking at them individually I'd probably agree with removal, especially anything referencing a single editathon some time ago. I'd hope you could justify each removal rather than saying 'rules'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The most recently granted case is CarlosRobbin.02 in January 2025. The others all date to March 2024 or earlier, with most being even older than that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The yare not editing, therefore they have no need to be confirmed. My only concern with removal is I know with EC if I grant and remove an editor's for gaming at 400, they won't get it automatically at 30/500. Should any of these become active, would they get confirmed automatically after your removal or would they have to request that and then EC? That could be confusing for them, but not a strong argument against. Star Mississippi 02:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's safe to remove them, they will autoconfirm as needed. The event coordinator granting out of scope should be coached. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot by mentioning this, but your analysis didn't catch my granting of the confirmed user right to Shicari r, who is blind and therefore cannot complete our CAPTCHA (or did you filter them out manually?) I knew about the general confirmed-user expiration date rule but re situations like this, I've always thought it best to ignore all rules here (I actually know of a blind user who was put out by a confirmed flag auto-expiring). However, in this case, they haven't made any edits; I've reached out to this user by email; given what they were going to use it for (a student project), they should've edited by now. I'd done my best to verify they were who they said they were before helping them out here. Also, this sort of situation is unlikely to happen very often. Graham87 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed that one because I excluded grants by both current and former admins (not thinking about the scenario where a former admin was granted event coordinator rights after their desysop). And the query I was using to find these relies on the user_former_groups table, so crosschecking timestamps so as to include Shicari r but exclude the many people you granted confirmed rights to while you were still an admin and hence not subject to the 10-day limit exceeds what I'm willing to code.

It turns out there are two such users: you and Gnagarra who has not made use of their ability to grant confirmed rights as an event coordinator since their desysop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I granted it to myself just before my desysop, but the outcome is the same. If consensus is that these situations should have at least *some* kind of expiry (maybe 3/6/12 months?), I'll do so in the future. (Maybe in this case I should've checked that the user could log in first ... better followup all-round might've been better). The other user is Gnangarra. Graham87 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably put a time limit of any duration up to three months to user right and renew when needed. Ideally, the person would have clocked enough edits by the time the user right lapses for autoconfirmed rights to kick in. – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason I shouldn't do this revocation? If I don't hear any objections I will do it sometime tomorrow. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Rights revoked from all users, as all of them were more than 3 months old, and all but one of them are more than year old. If anyone still needs this permission (and can't just make the necessary edits to become autoconfirmed) they are welcome to re-request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Related? revocation of autopatrolled

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.

---

Not sure if it's the same, but noticed in my watchlist today that @JJMC89: removed autopatrolled from Possibly and one of DGG's alts. This is, of course, correct since the deceased editors have no means of using the varied rights. They noted retention of other varied permissions: mover, EC. It brings up the question of what the processed is when an account is locked on an editor's death and if we're going to revoke for non use, whether the steward who locks or an admin active on their TP should remove at lock. Thoughts? No issue at all with JJMC's edits, just thought related to this conversation. Star Mississippi 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

when I went to notify JJMC89 that I'd flagged this here, I noted this was actually a result of Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Flag_removal_process, but kept it nested as it's a similar issue of stale permissions. Feel free to move elsewhere if needed. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think global locks prevent the user from logging in on any of the 1,000 wikis. So they can't access their user groups / user rights since they can't log in. As such, the exact rules and timing of if/when their user groups get removed on enwiki probably isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. May not need any formal rules for that situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 13 May 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.

Renamed user 73876485f2f7c42af5f2a33994cf3cb0

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.

---

• Renamed user 73876485f2f7c42af5f2a33994cf3cb0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove PCR. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:45, 16 May 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.

Deployment of Multiblocks on this wiki on June 2-4

Hello all! We want to introduce you a new feature called Multiblocks, #14 wish in Community Wishlist Survey 2023, that was also supported widely by your community.

With Multiblocks, admins get more block options: a sitewide and a partial block can run at the same time with different expiry dates. This eliminates the need to wait for the expiration of one block to apply the other. An admin may want to initially impose a temporary sitewide block on a disruptive user, and later keep their access to specific pages or namespaces restricted. This may be useful in cases of blocking Wikipedians heavily involved in editing specific namespaces or pages.

After successfully releasing it on four pilot wikis (Polish, German, Italian and Hebrew Wikipedia), we will begin mass deployment of the feature by the end of the month: all non-Wikipedia projects plus Catalan Wikipedia will adopt Multiblocks on the week of May 26, while all other Wikipedias — including yours — will adopt it on the week of June 2.

Administrators can test the new user interface now on your own wiki by browsing to Special:Block?usecodex=1, and can test full functionality on testwiki. See the help page on MediaWiki for more information. Please see T377121 on Phabricator for more info as well.

Please, be aware that the new Codex interface might break some existing gadgets, so contact the team or ping me directly under this thread if you have concerns or if you need help in rewriting hooks. The team is ready to help you with this.

I'm happy to answer your questions or to address your concerns. Please ping me in case of need under this thread. Thank you! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): How will this interact with the block tab in Twinkle? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle needs some work to have full multiblocks support. As the original author of the Twinkle block module, I can help with this, but it will take time. I've filed #2178 on GitHub. Until that's resolved, Twinkle should continue to work without issue for targets that have precisely 0 or 1 active blocks (not multi-blocked), which presumably will be the overwhelming majority of blocks made. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If I pull up Twinkle's block module on someone under a multiblock, will it fail gracefully, or is there a risk it will, for instance, overwrite the multiblock while leaving me under the impression that I'm just revoking talkpage access? If the latter, can we put a warning into the module or just make it not work in those cases, for now? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No idea since we haven't patched it yet and multiblocks isn't deployed yet. I think the plan is to detect a multi blocked user, and in that situation, blank the Twinkle form and provide a link to Special:Block –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

By design, it should be impossible to inadvertently add a new block on top of an existing one. The API will fail if you attempt a reblock on a multi-blocked target without passing in newblock=1 or an id parameter to specify which block to modify. This means that any script that uses mw:API:Block should continue to work as before, except on multi-blocked targets, where it will simply error out. The same is also true for mw:API:Unblock.

Unless folks really want the Twinkle block module to live on, I think the engineering time is better spent on getting Core's Special:Block to have feature parity. We achieved some of this already – Special:Block now surfaces range blocks that affect an individual IP. In the past this required manually reviewing the block log, Special:BlockList, or using Twinkle. Next up on that list is T392857 – Bring block + issue user talk template workflow into Core. Then we will be left with very few things that Twinkle does that Special:Block does not. It will be a while before that work is complete. My thoughts are multi-blocked targets probably won't be encountered that much to warrant fixing Twinkle. We will likely go with the short-gap solution Novem mentions above for the interim. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

We achieved some of this already – Special:Block now surfaces range blocks that affect an individual IP. This is awesome. Thanks for this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Remove my IPv6 adress from the history of a talk on pt.wikipedia.org

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

---

Hi.

I was sure I was on IPv4, I disabled IPv6, but on pt.wikipedia.org, it is my IPv6 adress which was used.

I don't want my IPv6 adress to be available on the web. Can an admin delete the history entries on Discussão:Luna E-3 No.2, from the pt wikipedia, please ?

I'm very sorry to ask this :( I'll be more prudent. I think it's because I'm on another interface, in wifi, but on en:, my IPv4 was still used. I was stupid. So sorry.

It's me indeed, I'm just talking about a date error on Luna E-3 No.2, that I edited on en:

Thanks, very sorry  :)

88.160.100.84 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Administrators here have no power to revision-delete on the Portuguese Wikipedia. You will need to ask admins there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for removing Topic ban

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

---

I was imposed a topic ban for the edits that I have made in the page List of Mudaliars.Even though, I added the contents with sources, the contents were removed and I was imposed a topic ban. Could someone please check on this? Pikachu 9988 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to check. You were informed about the topic ban on your User talk page. If you have questions it's best to ask the admin who imposed it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've commented on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Pikachu 9988 should be blocked for multiple topic ban violations, actually (t-ban imposed at 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC), then violations at 17:12, 16 May 2025, 17:38, 16 May 2025, 18:17, 16 May 2025). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  I gave them a logged warning for those violations yesterday, as is standard for a first-time TBAN violation that could plausibly be a misunderstanding. There have been none since then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Could've been a misunderstanding. And Putin might be on Zelensky's Christmas card list. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on how they've approached this, I'm quite ready to believe that they didn't understand they were TBANned despite the big box saying they were TBANned. That speaks to a larger potential competence issue, but I don't think to deliberate evasion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Pikachu 9988 has made numerous edits that appear to be vandalism or involve the addition of poorly sourced or unverifiable content across multiple Wikipedia pages. In many cases, the sources provided are either unreliable or do not support the added material, making it difficult to verify the content of the affected articles. I respectfully request that some administrators review this user's edit history over the past two years and consider reinstating any content that was improperly removed or altered.

List of Articals Violated by Pikachu 9988 but not limited to:

1. Sengunthar
2. Telugu Chodas
3. Srikantha Chola
4. Rajadhiraja II
5. List of Sengunthars
6. Karikala
7. Kakatiya dynasty (edit war)
8. Durjaya (Andhra chieftain)
9. Vijayalaya Chola

Thanks 37.186.54.78 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• The recent edits by User:Pikachu 9988 to List of Mudaliars were not only a violation of their topic-ban but also show why a topic-ban is needed. In short, they added persons, who are possibly legendary rather than historical, to the list of member of a community based on a 12c poem by Ottakoothar. Worse, according to historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (see pp. 521-523), the poem was supposedly commissioned then by members of the Sengunthar caste as a panegyric to the community, and the poet's work and later annotations are known to be largely fabricated stories to boost the community's origins. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Rgregergrgegergrg

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 @Liz and other respectable admins, there is a madlike user Rgregergrgegergrg on Wikipedia whose behaviour is like crazy person. I restored the revision by Elmidae on Short-beaked echidna but Rgregergrgegergrg reverted my edit immediately and then i warn him on his talkpage but he abused me 'shut up you stinky indian curry muncher'. He is doing edit war on Short-beaked echidna so please have a look at Short-beaked echidna and think to block him. Thank you! Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User blocked, PAs revdel'd. (I think their vandalism was all reverted by the time I got there.)

@Durjan Singh Jadon: you should report such incidents to a subpage of this board, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ('ANI'), or better yet to WP:AIV, for faster response. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, can you have a look here. Thank you Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Durjan Singh Jadon: no, I've no interest in, or knowledge of, that subject.

And please don't ping people onto that, because a) it quickly gets annoying, and b) you don't want to be seen to be canvassing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:37, 17 May 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.

Inability to negotiate and uncompromising attitude of the @Skitash administrator

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 to everyone. My complaint is directed against the administrator under the nickname @Skitash. In my opinion, Skitash is an absolutely incapable and uncompromising person in his actions, abusing his position as an administrator. He surprisingly often supports the user @Quetstar in his actions, most of which are also uncompromising removal of content, mainly photographic.

I tried to negotiate with Skitash about his edits on his talk page, because these are HIS edits, and argued my position on most issues (here and here). And in response.... he deleted my entire topic from the discussion page, without even really answering anything (except "my talk page isn't the place for that" although it is literally only his actions), but at the same time he continued to do the same thing that caused the conflict that I wrote to him about in the deleted topic. No matter what the situation, he demands that I, a non-administrator, seek consensus, and everywhere. He himself has not yet started a consensus on deleting information or even my articles, he simply deleted them without warning.

DETAILS:

Arab Deterrent Force.

On May 9, I added information about South Yemeni participation in the Lebanese Civil War as part of the Arab Deterrent Force (also ADF) and provided a source that confirm it. But already in May 11, Skitash deleted my edits about it, referring to the Fringe theory. In the discussion he deleted, I cited even more additional sources that I found, confirming the participation of South Yemen in the ADF forces (here, here, here and here), but after my attempt to return the information about this, Skitash repeated the rollback, this time without any explanation at all.

Algirr (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misclicked. There will be a continuation below. Algirr (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

They are not an administrator. Secretlondon (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

it, what? I thought he isa

Algirr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

But who is he in this case Algirr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Secretlondon Do you mean Skitash is a a standard editor? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

But why then does he always warn about edit wars, or about my discussion on the admin page, etc.? Algirr (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Any editor can revert edits and warn other editors about violations of policies and quidelines. Administrators are just editors that have access to certain tools that allow them to hide problem edits, delete pages, and block users from editing, among other things. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we must all work together to improve the encyclopedia. The community has adopted certain policies and guidelines (P&G) to facilitate that collaboration, and all editors are expected to abide by those P&G. We start off with warnings, which become stronger with repeated failures to abide by the P&G, and may lead to being blocked from editing. The community may also determine that an editor is sufficiently out of touch with the norms of the community that they should be blocked from any participation at Wikkipedia. Donald Albury 23:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

oh, I see. Algirr (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

1. I am not an administrator.

2. As per WP:BRD, once your edit is reverted, you're expected to seek consensus for your changes before re-adding the material. This is how the encyclopedia works.

3. Your "source" is a random WP:BLOG and thus an unreliable source. And yes, the material you're insisting on adding is considered WP:FRINGE since there are hardly any credible sources backing it.

What I do find concerning, however, is your behavior. You've resumed edit warring almost immediately after your third block this month ended, and you've continued to make personal attacks[46][47] and WP:LEGAL threats[48][49] against editors who disagree with you, including in this very complaint. Skitash (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I already said, these are not personal attacks or threats. As usual, you remained silent.

Yes, and I came to your discussion page where I posted all the facts and more links and sources, and in response you silently deleted everything and continued doing the same thing as before

As I said, I provided additional sources that you ignored.

Your behavior is much more concerning - you have never even compromised, you have never given in, and you have never been the first to reach a consensus, shifting all responsibility onto me as an opponent. Algirr (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"these are not personal attacks or threats " They absolutely are—regardless of how you try to frame them.

"I came to your discussion page where I posted all the facts and more links and sources, and in response you silently deleted everything" You did not come in good faith. You came to personally attack me. Also, you're supposed to open discussions about content on the relevant article's talk page. Not mine. I'm allowed to remove comments from my own talk page.

"shifting all responsibility onto me" That's because, in this case, the responsibility is on you. For example, on Mengistu Haile Mariam alone, you've reverted at least six different editors that contested your change to the infobox image.[50][51][52][53][54][55]

I will not tolerate or respond to further personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

1.No, its not. It is description of opponent. I am not said he is moron or something like this. I said he is one of the people who always deleting something and canceled changes, etc.

2.I came with an attempt to resolve the dispute peacefully (what you never did with me), as you constantly said to do in your messages with blocking threats. This is a not true, I didn’t say a single rude word in my messages on your discussion page. Well, you deleted all my arguments, ignored them and continued to do the same things.

3.By blaming me for the Mengistu article, you have presented it in a one-sided light. There were 2 disputes. In the first one there was one proposed new photo, in the second another. The only person who resisted the second photo was a user with whom I had already reached a consensus, but you were not satisfied with this and decided to join the conflict and heated it up even more.There were no personal attacks before, but overall it's OK Algirr (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the only thing you did was push your point of view everywhere (much more intensively than I did), ignore my counterarguments and throw threats of blocking at me. If your actions everywhere coincide with the actions of the Quetstar user, this does not mean that you are right everywhere. Algirr (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't finished writing everything I wanted yet, and perhaps this dialogue should be moved here, since you're not even an administrator. Algirr (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I would advise you to stop digging a hole, and take a break from commenting here for a day or two. Donald Albury 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Donald Albury What's wrong? I am just answering Algirr (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read, and learn from, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wording of apparent legal threats clarified, unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:BOOMERANG. OP blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC) @The Bushranger I'd like to note that the editor has a sockpuppet account named The Algirr. Skitash (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Not any more! Indeffed, Opened up SPI since we may have to start scooping up more of these. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC) @Rsjaffe: Note that on their talk page they appear to have a legitimate explanation for the altenate account, and did not block evade using it. It should have been flagged as an alternate account but it was not used abusively. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC) And the edit was prior to the block. OK, I'll cancel the SPI but keep the alternate blocked with a link to the original account. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) As they have clarified that they were not intending legal action, I have lifted the NLT block, and advised them to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Caste POV pusher

Hello respectable admins, please see the edits made by BhiRaaj, he is Bhil caste warrior and adding Bhil word and Bhil king in several articles without any source. I request you to block this Bhil warrior, all of the edits made same tune of his mind. Please see this1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Thank you! Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Durjan Singh Jadon, can you link to discussions you've had with this editor explaining our policies? As you are probably aware, ANI is where editors involved in a dispute come when our other methods of resolving disagreement (article talk pages, user talk pages, 3O, DRN, etc.) have failed. I can't see that you have tried talking with this editor so if you have, please point it out. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, i will try next time my best. Thank you Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Below section merged as they refer to the same issues. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Bhil State

Hello Sir, I have provided information about the Bhil states of the British period on the Bhil page based on British sources and India Gazetteer. The British ruled India for more than 300 years and during their time there were some states where there used to be Bhil kings. I have added information with references.This information was removed. Their argument was that the British sources are not reliable; if this is so then British sources should be removed from the entire Wikipedia.Well, according to me, the most reliable source in this country is the British because they have written unbiased history. I have also added references from various gazetteers of India. Whatever information I have added till now is available in various books by me, but some books are not available on the internet.I request you to bring back Bhil State History on Bhil page BhiRaaj (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@BhiRaaj: This issue does not need administrator intervention yet. I'd recommend that you continue discussion at the concerned articles' talkpage (eg, Talk:Bhil) or at WP:RSN for input on source reliability. That said, IMO your current argument that century old WP:RAJ-era books or gazetteers are the most reliable sources on the topic of caste etc is unlikely to get your anywhere, and your efforts would be better spent researching what modern scholarship has to say on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Maybe this should be sent in the article's talk page instead? Do note that "all or nothing" complaints like "If a language written in A is bad then remove all A sources" should be avoided. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hide these racist edit summaries.

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

---

Hide these racist edits targeting Mexicans:

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/159.148.186.246

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/85.203.22.145

https://li.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicane&oldid=439438

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/Gypsy_person_in_Cali

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/195.123.247.30

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/43.133.172.211 107.151.196.215 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toiminnot:Muokkaukset/199.33.68.37

https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speisialta:Contributions/Palmdale_CA_93550 107.151.196.215 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The different language versions of Wikipedia are all completely separate projects, and we have no administrative control over them. Please take this up with the fi.- and ga.wiki admins, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 19 May 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.

L235 re-appointed as full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that L235 (talk · contribs) will be rejoining the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk. We express our thanks to the clerks for the work they do in ensuring that the arbitration process operates smoothly. If you are interested in joining the team as a trainee, please read through the information page and send an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § L235 re-appointed as full clerk

User talk:Waxworker

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 talk:Waxworker

Recently this person took down info I added to a page that has a reliable source. Can anyone help me? Here’s the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dobson_(actor)Youngblue2005 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 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 about clerking for next Administrator Elections

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Election clerk(s). Soni (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Austin Metcalf

The suspect in the Killing of Austin Metcalf is currently a redirect, and now has an Articles for Deletion discussion against it. Should the Articles for Deletion discussion not be closed as "wrong venue"? Also, can my other posts on this page today be permanently deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, the proper venue is RFD and a discussion is already underway there. I have closed the AFD as procedural close. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can my other mistaken posts today on this page with the suspect name be permanently deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But also, I don't think that revdel is warranted here. All discussions (AFD/RFD) regarding the accused are already public, 2-3 revisions with the accused's name here is nothing by comparison. If revdel was really required, some admin would've done it by now. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Double-black-stricken edits in contributions

Special:Contributions/179.106.144.1

What happened to these edits? In my experience with ordinary admin revdel, the link is still blue and I can do something, but I can't here. In my experience with oversighted edits, the text is grey and stricken out with a single line. I don't think I've ever before seen a black strikeout or a double-line strikeout. Nyttend (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend A single line means a revision is revision deleted, and is visible to and restorable by admins. A double line means the revision is oversighted, it will not be visible to admins. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Oversight#Nomenclature, "grey and stricken out with a single line" is ordinary admin revdel when viewed by a non-admin (which I just confirmed by logging out and checking the page history of a page with revdel'd edits - blue with single line logged in as admin, gray with single line logged out). Double black strikeouts = oversight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the info there needs to be updated, then. Based upon checking a couple revids there, they're definitively supressed. Actually, based upon a quick check in a private window, it appears to be a skin-based thing. double-crossed out and black is vector-2022, vector, monobook, cologneblue and minerva, while timelesss is the odd one out with a single grey line. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

phab:T394587. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Those edits have been “oversighted” or “suppressed”. (WP:SUPPRESS) 2001:8003:B15F:8000:4CE4:2C0C:995B:4859 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Administrators deletion protected

War 2 and War 2 (2025 film). These pages are deleted multiple times.

This is the teaser of the film from verified you tube channel of Yash Raj Films

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1W-AViQ-M

Administrators should remove the block. There are also multiple drafts of the same topic.

This highly notable film not having Wikipedia article is not right. Fruit Orchard (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fruit Orchard: present an acceptable draft to WP:AfC, and this may well be done. You can start at WP:YFA, with reference to the relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, and your sources at the ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Draft:War 2 is accepted protection will be lifted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

But please note that the existence of a teaser does not fulfill our notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Note the many deletions and draftifications (there were at least 5 disambigation names in draft as there were so many draftified after the bludgeoning following deletion discussions).--CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Fruit Orchard - The film in question is an upcoming film. Please read film notability guidelines, which explain that unreleased or upcoming films are seldom considered notable. Film notability is based primarily on reviews by film critics and reviewers, which are published as soon as the film is released in theaters. Articles about unreleased films are usually too soon and are too often promotional and so non-neutral. However, if you think that the film is one of the exceptional films that is notable before release, you may submit one of the drafts for review to see whether the reviewer is willing to recommend that the title be desalted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the present draft is going to be any good. The sources are quite literally all the usual pre-release monomaniacal sources meant to generate buzz. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Shahab Khan Administrator access only

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.

---

• Shahab Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hy everyone! I wrote an article about a Pakistani cricketer who debut in First class cricket in 2023-24 National T20 Cup and won the best bowler award. When I started publishing it, I found that this page is only within the domain of the administrator because this page was created over and over again for different person back in 2017. I'm here to ask for protection removal so that I can publish it. Or an admin should write this article. Behappyyar (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to even be about the same Shahab Khan; at least this discussion is about an actor, not a cricketer. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That's what I am saying. Should we create it on the same page or change the name like Shahab Khan (cricketer). Behappyyar (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry; I should read posts properly before replying to them. While an article about the actor (or any other namesake) does not exist Shahab Khan is the correct title for this. I am not an admin so I can't lift the protection myself, but I don't see why that shouldn't be done when an admin sees this. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article title and you're free to create it @Behappyyar Star Mississippi 12:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Thanks 💫 Behappyyar (talk) 12:33, 21 May 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.

Special:Tags request

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

---

Can an admin please change the link for the ProveIt edit tag from ProveIt edit to ProveIt edit or ProveIt edit. Thanks Nobody (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.  Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:32, 21 May 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: Scope creep

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.

---

--qedk (t 愛 c) 19:32, 21 May 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.

Impersonation concern: “Sarbaan Shahid”

Hello. I was contacted by someone claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator named “Sarbaan Shahid” who offered to publish my draft in exchange for personal contact. However, this user does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. Please advise or investigate.

Thank you. KGrigol (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave this so you can get a fuller response, but in the meantime please have nothing to do with this person. I very much doubt that they are a Wikipedia administrator, but if so I think they will not be for much longer. Nobody should contact you like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not the first time a phisher has tried this, although the one I recall was on another language's Wikipeida. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

KGrigol, this is a common scam, please review Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. The imposter will ask for money and either do a terrible job or simply disappear with your cash. If you have more questions, you might bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Adrien Nunez image

• Adrien Nunez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An WP:SPA keeps removing the Adrien Nunez infobox image. Rather than either revert the SPA or revert to a prior infobox image, User:Polarmadewell put an image request banner up for an article with 3 remaining images in it. As the photographer of 3 of the 4 images, I would rather a third party figure out what to do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the image and removed the request. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Grantball: was not notified of this discussion, which the yellow box on top of the edit window says is required. I have done so. Tony, in the future, please remember to do this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger, I am, of course sorry about the notification, but I was here because I was confused about how things were going procedurally, and a bit out of sorts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

User:DrKay, may I ask if your decision was based more on the fact that 1. all other images are of him as a basketball player rather than an entertainer, 2. the image is from last month rather than 2020 or 2021 or 3. the image depicts him actually looking at the camera?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I just undid the last removal. I'm not especially attached to that image, so feel free to replace it. DrKay (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I am happy with the reversions and consider it better for each of those reasons, but reverting an SPA is also a valid explanation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking to get a defaced wiki page fixed.

The page is Jason Itzler Im a live streamer so people are trolling adding things to make me look bad, if we can revert back to around 2 months ago That would be great and if we can lock it so no more edits. Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I invite you to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, which gives more context about what should be done in your situation. Some claims are sourced to unreliable sources like the New York Post and should either be removed or a better source should be found. However, others have more solid sources like the New York Times, and cannot be removed just because the subject of the article asks to, without more evidence that the sources are wrong. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

We also do not protect("lock") articles merely to prevent others from editing them. If there is a demonstrable problem with vandalism or WP:BLP violations, then protection can be considered. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah. Unfortunately reliable sources—Miami Herald, The New York Times—state that the subject is a former ringleader of the prostitution ring New York Confidential who has been imprisoned multiple times for drug crimes, prostitution, and money laundering, on top of previous charges of aggravated assault with a weapon, burglary, and stalking in Florida. (I removed the NYPO materal before posting here, as it's all-but-deprecated.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking specifically at content added in the last two months, a lot of it should be double-checked as it might not be verified by reliable sources (Special:Diff/1275028363/1291494608) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we get Reference 8 removed as well, ( PIMP ‘KING’ IN RIKERS RUMBLE) Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The New York Daily News is considered generally reliable. However, concerns about content should take place on Talk:Jason Itzler, not here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi@Chaotic Enby @The Bushranger @331dot this has been at ANI before, I think, and landed on my Talk for reasons I don't recall but my have been due to my prior protection of the article: User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_22#Jason_Itzler_reversion and User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_19#Itzler_reversion_about_Sumnicht. I unfortunately no longer had the on wiki time or interest to monitor the issue. Just sharing background if helpful Star Mississippi 01:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

ETA: prior discussion Star Mississippi 01:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The OP says, "people are trolling adding things to make me look bad". Hasn't he considered that it's his own actions that make him look bad? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Gasnobrakes10, we can do nothing about the fact that independent reliable sources report on crimes you have been convicted of. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

CU request

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

---

Can we get a CU to have a quick look at User talk:Man against n and just shut that down properly? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The correct location is WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. Or you can use {{Checkuser needed}}. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. I blocked the "neighbor" and have left Man a final warning. No objection if someone thinks a block is called for now. Star Mississippi 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomen est omen - obviously a WP:SPA introducing his own WP:OR. But do I have to be called a Nazi defender if I disagree [56]?  @xqt 04:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Star Muissssippi's call was fine. But the fact that they carry on denying it suggests that at this point, a block would be preventative; they either don't understand or don't care what they've done. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same guy based on behavior. Истина в последней инстанции (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is probably also them given the CU data; which was blocked on ruwiki for trolling. beef [talk] 10:47, 22 May 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 Create Draft:Binod Tamu Ballu

Hello, I am trying to create a draft page titled "Draft:Binod Tamu Ballu," but I am receiving a permission error due to the title blacklist. I believe I meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I want to create a draft to document my contributions as a Nepali artist (or your relevant field). Can an administrator please create this page for me or help resolve the blacklist issue? Thank you! Binod Tamu Ballu 2400:1A00:4B8D:A106:1095:DF0A:503:CA49 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

2400:1A00:4B8D:A106:1095:DF0A:503:CA49, can you try creating a version in your User space? I'm not sure if that's okay for IP accounts but I'd try that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's now been created, reviewed, and declined. User:Liz, I believe the request was related to the title itself, which probably wouldn't be helped in userspace, even if an IP did it. No idea if IPs creating something in userspace is a good idea to suggest; I'm going to go to VP. But I'm not complaining at you at all :-) Nyttend (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Request block for User:Alceste sur son yacht

Talk:Jean-Paul Gut have repeatedly possible vandalism duplicately from article for Jean-Paul Gut Donnermar2 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This new editor has completely reverted the new section I introduced on the talk page of this article for consideration, review and discussions by ALL editors.

I invited him to argument on the talk page, but he never did.

The proposed changes to the main articles are proposed on the talk page TO ALL editors, so that they can discuss, before amending the main article, wording/editing of mere important facts, that are further more published about this person by numerous respected media all over Europe (such as Financial Times, Handelsblatt, Der Spiegel...)

See hereafter my proposed changes for discussions by all editors, which Donnermar2 wants to forbid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Paul_Gut&diff=prev&oldid=1291593076

Such facts also appear here and there in other articles on Wikipedia where the name of this person is mentioned.

I strongly deny any wrongdoing on my part regarding the BLPs, and of course any vandalism on my part.

I consider that Donnemar2 actions are pure vandalism,

as apparently he has also not contributed on any other wiki either.

I myself contribute on Wiki Fr

Regards, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems to have at its heart a content dispute, but that has been compounded by both editors' behaviour. Please discuss this in good faith on the article talk page. That means without accusations of vandalism, without changing or removing other people's talk page edits, without claiming that anything can be included as long as it is reliably sourced, without touching the article itself until agreement has been reached and simply with good faith. The steps at WP:DR may be taken if you reach an impasse. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I fully agree with your remarks. This is the reason why, on what is a touchy subject, I have not changed the main article upfront. On the contrary, I have proposed the necessary changes on the talk page, so that ALL editors can express their opinions, not only about the content, but the way to write it too,

so that the main article will then be reflecting ALL facts (not a small selection as now) will become neutral, and strictly according to the existing sources.

Regards, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Alceste sur son yacht, left a message about this on my talk page. I'm guessing because they saw an unanswered message from me querying a message Donnermar2 left a new user, see [57].

I must admit, I don't understand why Donnermar2 has removed a talk page discussion that Alceste sur son yacht left at Talk:Jean-Paul Gut. [58]. The edits by Alceste sur son yacht were not vandalism, they look like an effort to improve the article and contained references.

It looks like Donnermar2 might need to look at Wikipedia:Vandalism and familiarise themselves with what constitutes vandalism. Reading through Wikipedia:Username policy might also help to avoid putting off new users before they start? Knitsey (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also suggest that @Donnermar2 strike through the level 4 warning they left. Knitsey (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Alceste sur son yacht, I do not want to imply that any of your edits are as bad as Donnermar2's, but, purely because you seem to be more amenable to discussion, I would point out that everything that is well sourced does not necessarily belong in an article. Of course the content that you wish to include may belong (I have tried to avoid the underlying content dispute) but it still needs to be discussed if it is removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I got your point, and I agree in principal. This is in fact the very reason why I first published on this talk page, and not on the main page of this article (as I also mentionned in the introduction paragraph), so that discussions can happen, and in order to get the input of other contributors. Let's see what will come. Cheers, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Knitsey: I appreciate your suggestion. Thank you. However, so far, @Donnermar2 ignored it, unfortunately. Cheers, --Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alceste sur son yacht, I'm not an admin so please feel free to ignore this.

Maybe put this down to an over enthusiastic new editor and request this be closed. It looks like the discussions at Talk:Jean-Paul Gut have started, with some of Wikipedias experiences editors. You are free to delete the warning message from your talk page if you wanted to. Knitsey (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Have a great day! Cheers, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

As suggested hereabove by @Knitsey, I respectfully ask this request to be closed, as it is without merit. Thank you in advance. Cheers, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Draft talk page moved to main space and overwritten

Today, User:Itamar Sade moved Draft talk:David Assia to David Assia. It seems they then overwrote the contents with those of Draft:David Assia, which had recently been declined at AfD.

At the very least, a history split needs to be made, and the old talk page restored. The subsequent edits to the mainspace page may need to be merged onto the draft, if the former is not kept.

User conduct is being discussed already, at WP:COIN#User:Itamar Sade, so all I'm asking for here is a cleanup of the edits.

What a mess. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a history split is needed, since it was the same editor working on the content in draftspace that then pasted it into the article - it's correctly attributed as it is. My concern is the extremely blatant end-around of a declined AfC, what with moving the talk page to mainspace and then pasting the declined content on top of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've split the old talk page edits, since that's cleanly doable and bound to cause confusion down the line. I've not merged the draftspace edits, both per The Bushranger's comments and because there are WP:Parallel histories with the second AfC decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting experienced closer

Is there anyone who's willing to close WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor? It's been hanging around on WP:CR for a month or so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect creation

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.

---

Could a willing administrator create Matplotlib version3.10.0, https://matplotlib.org/ as a redirect to Matplotlib? It is linked in the exif of File:Mandelbrot high-resolution.png. JayCubby 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. I'm not happy about this situation where files are forcing increasingly bizarre titles to be created, but it's what the consensus is and I can't think of any better ideas. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:32, 24 May 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.

Russification of non-Russian names and toponyms

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

---

A person, using several accounts (Sojetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Erledigungs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you started a file at WP:SPI? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the two accounts as socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goelia. However, I think filing an SPI and requesting CU would be helpful to look for others. The socks in Goelia appear to be stale, but these two accounts can be compared against each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

New general sanctions regime notification

Permanent link: here.

The community authorizes the standard set of contentious topic restrictions as general sanctions for topics related to Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, and Syriac identity, culture, and politics, broadly construed. The use of "and" here should be understood inclusively, meaning sanctions may apply to any, multiple or all of these ethnicities and listed topics. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please review for Special:Contributions/Bajetha thakurs

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

Please help for contributions for Draft:Bajetha Donnermar2 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Bajetha thakurs (talk · contribs) creating articles using WP:LLM (GPTZero shows a confident match) and should be strongly discouraged to contribute untill they fix this major issue. Agent 007 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's an edit where they left the LLM response in along with the text! Second person entranced by LLM I've had to deal with today. Going to pblock from mainspace, draft and category space until this is cleared up, as an LLM helps a person contribute a lot of material quickly (which we do not want in this case). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Clean up redirect / AfD 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.

---

My apologies, would an another admin please clean up a mistaken closure of this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Panamá Flight 982) I made, please? I was using XfD closer, but it appears to have only deleted the redirect, but not the actual article itself, I'm not sure if I should revert, or now tag the article as G6... or something else. Again, apologies. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like HouseBlaster got it for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 25 May 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.

Amending Judge Deborah Taylor Wikipedia Page

Dear Administrators

I am trying to amend the wikipedia page for Judge Deborah Taylor. Deborah Taylor (judge)

Details shown on this page appear to have been confused with a different Judge Taylor working in Immigration and Asylum. The picture on the page is correct. However, Judge Deborah Taylor has asked for the correct information to be shown. She is currently Chair for the Nottingham Inquiry and would like the website to be clear when viewed by the public. Correct information to be added is below and I have referenced with the attached source https://nottingham.independent-inquiry.uk/the-inquiry-team/

I have been unable to update personally as I understand there is a conflict of interest as I work for Ministry of Justice. I have tried to update using edit COI and edit request wizard - but am not familiar with updating wikipedia and am falling foul of protocols which delete my requests. Could I please ask that the Judge Deborah Taylors page is updated with the correct information?

Thank you

Stephen

Deborah Frances Taylor (born 18 December 1959) is a retired British barrister and Judge.

Early Life and Education

She was born in Newcastle upon Tyne and educated  at Central Newcastle High School for Girls (GDST), before studying at Somerville College, Oxford from 1979 to 1982 graduating with a BA in Jurisprudence. She completed Bar Finals at the Inns of Court School of Law in1983.

Legal Career

Taylor was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1983 and practised at Crown Office Chambers, appearing in notable cases including Callery v Gray (HL)(2002) following the introduction of Conditional Fee Agreements.

Taylor was appointed an Assistant Recorder in 1998, Recorder in 1999 before being appointed to the Circuit Bench in 2005. From 2013 she also sat as a s.9 Judge in the High Court Queen’s Bench Division and Administrative Court, and in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. She was appointed a Judicial Appointments Commissioner from 2011 -2013.

In 2016 she was appointed a Senior Circuit Judge, Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court and Recorder of Westminster. Taylor presided primarily over serious and complex financial cases.Other notable cases including Balakrishnan (the Lambeth Slavery case) (2016), Gregor Matlok (2017) burglary in pursuit of Madonna, Rolf Harris (2017), the appeal of Amy Dalla Mura (2017) for harassment of Anna Soubry MP, sentencing of Julian Assange (2019) for failing to answer bail, Claudia Webbe (2022) appeal by MP against conviction for harassment, Hornberger (2021) stabbing outside the Home Office, and the trial of Boris Becker (2022).

Taylor was made a Bencher of Inner Temple in 2010 , and served as Treasurer in 2022. After retiring from the Judiciary in December 2022 she became Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service from March 2023 until April 2025 and was appointed Chair of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board in July 2023.

On 22 April 2025 Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmoud announced the appointment of Taylor as Chair of the Nottingham Inquiry into the 2023 attacks by Valdo Calocane during which three people were stabbed to death and three more seriously injured. Stephen Manger (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Stephen Manger Your edit history doesn't indicate any edit requests were made by you. What happened when you attempted to use the wizard? You can also make an edit request manually directly on the article talk page. See WP:ER for instructions. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This and this show that Taylor (as the OP says) attended Somerville college from 1979 (which of course strongly suggests that she was born in 1959, not 1953). Therefore the biographical sentence is about the wrong person, so I have removed it, and also DOB of the subject, which was unsourced anyway. I have sourced the correct middle name with a government document. I believe the article is now correct, but of course could be expanded (possibly using the interview source I mentioned). Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. @Baratiiman is doing vandalism in Tourism in Iran. The user has added a nonsense paragraph that cites "no tourist visited Iran in 2025"! The user has used a non-reliable reference that does not correspond with those words too. I reverted the vandal edit in that article and warned the user in its' talk page, but the user did not respond and reverted back. This user has been banned in Persian Wikipedia due to its vandal actions. The.shahab (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have put sources

And Where is your source Baratiiman (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I assume that you can understand Persian (I do, at least). Take another look at your reference and see if "No Tourist in Iran 2025" is anywhere in that article or not. The.shahab (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Word by word i've translated the text Baratiiman (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I should unbelievably believe that you do not understand neither Persian nor English! Mr. Shakib said: "in Norooz 1404 (March 21st - April 2nd 2025), [inbound] tourism of Iran was severely weak and I somehow could say that no "incoming tour" was held in that time."

Just for your information, a tourist can visit a given destination, on a packaged tour, or as an individual. No tour in Iran, means no packeged one (A to Z). Mr. Shakib is the manager Association of Tour Operators of Iran, so he cites his words about those tours. The.shahab (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

And how can we say how many tourists visited Iran in 2025 when the year isn't half over yet? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

And that is contradicted my my own original research (yes, I know that that can't be put in a Wikipedia article) by which I was talking to a Bangladeshi in the UAE just a couple of weeks ago who had visited Iran in 2025 as a tourist. I don't know whether it was in Norooz (or however you spell it) but it was about then and definitely in 2025. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Baratiiman has been the subject of repeated complaints regarding the quality of translation of Farsi sources that border on WP:SYNTH. See Talk:2025 US–Iran negotiations#Three times Khamenei, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Reformists Front section has been sabotaged, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Quality problems, Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election#Chatbot sentence for possibly recovery, User talk:Baratiiman#Removed a text block from you at food security, User talk:Baratiiman#Ways to improve List of libraries in Isfahan, User talk:Baratiiman#List of libraries in Isfahan moved to draftspace, User talk:Baratiiman#"Jew settlers" for example. Articles they have created or edited heavily often have to be cleaned up for poorly-written and possibly unsupported material.Borgenland (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Also noting statistics [59] during the last Persian Year, which ended with Nowrouz on 20 March of this year, unless Baratiiman can prove that those 7.3 million stopped arriving on 1 January or tries to discredit the source. Borgenland (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Quwoting2

User Quwoting2 keeps removing content from the Debí Tirar Más Fotos article (just to give one example) without providing an explanation in the edit summary, despite multiple warnings and direct requests to do so. Multiple warnings and complaints by different users regarding Quwoting2's behavior can be found here, here and here for years now. Also, on the article’s talk page, attempts to discuss various topics have been made, but they continue to engage in disruptive editing regardless. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

^ *slight breath* okay..

So for context the main reason this is being brought up is that the sampled/interpolated artists for this album are credited as producers and not songwriters which can be seen here and here (@Sbb618 ping?). My opinion is that they should remain credited as producers unless reliable primary sources are available, e.g. physical/liner notes, in which case they can be credited as songwriters, or, in the case of an album like GNX by Kendrick Lamar, not at all. @Thedayandthetime then suggested that a note could be added to every credited sample, which I believe would only server to clutter the page more: notes like this^[a] would arguably serve as more of a distinguisher. (In their defense I did not elaborate on this in my edit summaries, but I felt I had explained it enough.) Despite this, they have insisted upon adding (what is in my opinion unnecessary) content to the Track listing section, stating "this is Wikipedia, not a Bad Bunny fan page". I don't get that.

In my opinion, I am simply following a consensus. I may be wrong. Quwoting2 / Mhm? 02:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been following any disputes on the page itself the last few months, but the credits for the album that are given on streaming services have been confusing & led to many debates, since they're both incorrect (Bad Bunny is not the sole writer on almost every song even though most of his albums list him as such; this can be confirmed by looking up the songs in publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories) and misleading (for some reason, on Tidal (usually used for sourcing credits because it's the most comprehensive & easy to read) this album listed the original writers of its many samples not under writers as is commonplace, but under *producers*, which is almost certainly not the case).

Should we faithfully reproduce the data from the best & most accessible source we have even when it's wrong, incomplete, or both? Or should we interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense? I don't have a good answer. I think as-is, the page is getting cluttered and looks unbalanced, but that's really working around the data we have now instead of being priority #1, and is getting off track from the topic at hand. Sbb618 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I do think we should "interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense". Per WP:PRIMARY, "deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". Thedayandthetime (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct seems to me to be the very definition of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Except we can guarantee those dimensions through sources, as stated above (publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories). Also, Spotify had all sampled artists credited as songwriters for a while. Not sure if there's an archived version of that though. Thedayandthetime (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's a revision with (now archived) Spotify giving proper credit to the songwriters. Per WP:CON, "consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable)." The only editor opposing my edits is Quwoting2, who once again removed content while this discussion was happening, which could be seen as violations of both WP:STONEWALL and WP:DISRUPT. Thedayandthetime (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on extended confirmed

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. It is a proposal to change WP:XC from 500 edits + 30 days to 500 edits + 90 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this so dropping it here, broken tool on contribs page for IPs

I was looking at the IP contributions of this person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.173.126.199

When I clicked on the WHOIS toolsforge link, it went to a 404: https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=67.173.126.199

Just FYI for wherever one of you may need to refer this. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It took what seems to have been an inordinate amount of time for me (I didn't time it as I should have done) but it got there in the end. Either toolforge or the WHOIS server seems to have a bit of a performance problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person, I had a technical problem two days ago when Quarry was down and if I have technical questions, I post a query at WP:VPT. I don't always get a solution but the percentage of editors who check on that noticeboard who can answer technical questions is much higher than WP:AN. Give it a try next time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

An additional tool was recently added as the Alternate for Geolocate. That tool is not relevant for this report, but the discussion shows where such matters are controlled: Template talk:Anontools#Protected edit request on 1 May 2025. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Block request for a disruptive user Skitash

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 guy is reverting all of my edits in English Wikipedia, all of them and says that I'm "disrupting" the English Wikipedia. But you can look my edits: There's nothing disruptive. The administrators must solve that problem.

For example: I just added Amr ibn Hisham's pictural name on his article and he reverted it. 78.177.163.183 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 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.

Ethnocentric edits

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

---

Please lock the Turkic people in Afghanistan page. It is constantly being edited by ethnic nationalists who attempt to alter the demographics, including Pashtun Ghilzais. The claim that they are descendants of Khalaj is merely a theory, and even if true, their current identity is Iranic. Therefore, this manipulation is a clear example of Pan-Turkist falsification. کوروش نیک نژاد1010 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please make the request here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Cinaroot (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I did this but it is unjust to consider the Ghilji Pashtuns as Turks based on an unverified theory especially when the same people who proposed this theory themselves believed that the Khalaj had an Indo-European origin کوروش نیک نژاد1010 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I declined the protection request. Protection is not required, and this topic should not have even been brought here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 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.

AI editing? concerning User:Jorge906

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.

---

• Jorge906 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles/GA reviews that this user created, e.g. Dancing with Our Hands Tied, Talk:King of My Heart/GA2, Draft:How Did It End?, seem to be products of blatant AI (not just AI-assisted, but AI-created). Is this permittable? Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Leaving a note at WT:GAN pointing here. CMD (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. @Jorge906, can you please tag the GA review with Template:G7? LLMs do not understand our content review processes. If the review page is deleted, it will go back to the queue in its original position. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to take a closer look at the article and draft, but both the GA review and their userpage have blatant LLM hallmarks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I also recall they made an obviously AI-generated proposal at the village pump last month. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I do recall that, but I deleted it I think Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it was archived as seen here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#Provisional Initiative: Improving Judy Garland Content on Wikipedia. Even if it was deleted, it would still be in the revision history anyways. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

[The following is addressing the use of AI to generate a GA review. specifically Talk:King of My Heart/GA2]: It is tempting to say that AI-generated GAN reviews are not permitted ... but AI is a locomotive rolling down the track. At this point I think WP should focus on emphasizing that AI is a tool the reviewer can use, no different that the existing Copyright Violation tools; or grammar/spell checkers. For all these tools: The human editor must still "review the review".

At a minimum, the human editor that ran the AI tool must read the AI report; compare the AI report to the GAN article body and verify accuracy; and craft a manually-written confirmation that they've reviewed it and it is consistent with the GAN article.

In addition, the human must perform the tasks that AI tools cannot do yet:

1. Validate that images are free use
2. Examine some sources and verify that the citations are legitimate
3. Check cites for consistency (e.g. mixing [rp] with sfn )
4. Compliance with MOS guidelines
5. Image layout and formatting
6. Do "Wikipedia specific" style checks e.g. InfoBoxes, NavBars, Categories etc.
7. ... etc, etc, etc ...

Also: The AI tool (at least these example cited above) is not producing good quality comments ... they seem to be vague hand-waving. AI is not catching prose or style issues that a (experienced) WP copy editor can provide.

For those reasons, an AI-generated review, by itself, is absolutely not acceptable for a GA review.

Those are my initial thoughts. I suppose this same AI debate will start happening in several places in WP: GA, article creation, Peer Reviews, FA. Noleander (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not just tempting, it is practice based past AI review attempts, and this is another example of why that practice exists. All very well to say "AI is a tool the reviewer can use", but if the AI cannot catch prose and style issues, then it isn't really going to be a helpful tool. Llms are predictive algorithms, they're not going to be much help with anything else. For example, this AI has claimed that there are bare url cites in the article. There are not, but presumably it's picked up somewhere that bare urls are not ideal, and has inserted that idea despite it having no relation to the article at hand (something a grammar/spelling checker would not do). CMD (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I dislike AI articles and reviews as much as anyone. But it's not realistic to outright ban the use of AI ... editors are going to use it, there's no stopping that. Isn't it better to require disclosure and to create guidelines, than to pretend editors will stop using it? Noleander (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's also no stopping e.g. block evasion and sockpuppetry, by people with the necessary nous to avoid making it too obvious. We still have policies against such things, and enforce them when we can. The only 'guideline' (actually a policy) we need regarding AI-generated input (in articles, or elsewhere), in my opinion, is that it should be immediately deleted, and the contributor warned that persistent use of such material will result in an indefinite block. LLM-generated content 'cannot be trusted in article space, and anyone incapable of communicating in their own words elsewhere on Wikipedia has no business trying to participate in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct. An editor who cannot contribute without AI tools is not competent to be editing, and is unwelcome. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd support a ban - my suggestion above was my attempt to be practical (and modern?). Does WP have a ban on AI already in place? I see essay Wikipedia:Large language models ... is there an active proposal to make a policy/guideline covering AI? Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As of now, no ban, and as far as I'm aware, no formal proposal for such. Instead, we have a time-sink expanding at an almost exponential rate, as more and more communication-skills-deficient individuals (and sometimes just lazy ones) decide to let the bots do the work for them. We spend more than enough time trying to make sense of each other, and I very much doubt the community will show much enthusiasm for endless arguments with bots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Another troubling scenario is using AI to flood Talk pages as a kind of automated gish gallop tool, as was suspected recently at Talk:Acupuncture. The editor is question was sanctioned, and that is what in practice will happen to problematic AI-using editors, but the community as a whole should ideally get behind a PAG on this. I suspect there are too many editors who believe AI is somehow useful for encyclopedia writing. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Per this discussion, such comments can be collapsed by admins or "closers", and I think there is generally strong support for any user to collapse them. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Should this AN issue evolve into a proposal for a WP guideline/policy? Initiating that would be way over my head ... but it would be nice if this AN issue resulted in a concrete proposal. Noleander (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There are many important concerns, however for the purposes of this side conversation from my comment I want to emphasize the narrow case in question, that AI should not (because it can not, it's just not how the models work) be used to review a GAN. There are no guidelines that can ameliorate this. CMD (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been historically pretty difficult to make proposals to restrict generative AI that everyone can agree on, until the ban on AI-generated images not too long ago. From experience, it is best to start with clearly defined proposals in specific use cases. A possible RfC question could be something like:

Is AI-generated content acceptable in a GAN review?

This is specifically about generated content, and doesn't apply to, say, using ChatGPT as a translation tool, or as a grammar checker (although someone using a LLM in that way should verify that it doesn't alter the meaning of what was written or add new content).
I expect the question of using LLMs for spotchecks to also come up, and don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be included as an additional question in this RfC – it isn't great, but might be slightly out of scope on top of being harder to verify. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Making the question about generation presupposes that the different functions of ChatGPT can be separated, which they can't be. Further, so far, no-one has pointed out what the llm can be used for in a review. Noleader specifically stated that they don't trust it for spelling and grammar, which seems the part of GACR that a predictive algorithm would be most easily able to do (I find it to have a roughly equal hit and miss rate). Use in GAN review is a specific use case, and one which those at GAN have already rejected multiple times in the past. Somewhere there are specific tools being trialled to assist with source checking and identifying unsourced text, but so far as I know aren't at the point where they can replace manual spot-checking. CMD (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant to say grammar checking regarding the reviewer's own written review, not regarding the article under review, my bad. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still wouldn't encourage that, as it can't be separated from everything else ChatGPT does. It's all the same algorithm/base instructions. Very different results from say, putting it into a document editor and seeing what squiggly line suggestions are made (at least perhaps, until llms are integrated into those products too). CMD (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander, in my view this "attempt to be practical" is what has stalled out a lot of discussions on AI more than anything else. Since you do apparently support a ban, why the devil's advocacy? You don't need to answer that. But the next time you see someone doing it, ask them if that's what they really believe is best. After all, we also can't prevent people from violating BLP policy, or from writing unverifiable content on Wikipedia, or whatever else. It is, nonetheless, our policy that people do not do these things. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I wrote that "devil's advocate" post above because I assumed that WP would permit AI soon, and my goal was to establish restrictions & constraints (within the GAN context, at least). Now that I see that other editors are willing to support a ban, perhaps such restrictions will not be needed. Regarding the absence of any AI policy in WP (so far) .... that reminds me of some policy proposals from many years ago: I quickly discovered that creating new policies in WP is a Sisyphean task: one could propose the policy that "2+2=4" and dozens of editors would oppose it. Such is the nature of WP consensus-building. Noleander (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a good time to mention that consensus is a Wikipedia policy. Recent discussions on ANI show overwhelming consensus that many instances of LLM usage are disruptive and not acceptable on Wikipedia. Even if there is no policy or guideline that explicitly addresses LLM-based disruptive editing, we are fully capable of determining whether the effects of LLM-assisted edits are disruptive and implementing sanctions for user conduct when necessary. An editor will eventually propose the right wording in the right location to get the consensus codified into a policy or guideline section that we can link to with a convenient shortcut. Until then, we will continue to handle inappropriate uses of LLM case-by-case under the backing of consensus, which is a policy in itself. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Outside of individual bans, nope. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There is policy consensus that LLM-generated contributions to discussions may be collapsed or struck. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines § Striking and collapsing obvious LLM-generated comments to implement the consensus from the January RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199 § LLM/chatbot comments in discussions through an addition to the talk page guidelines. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, I think so. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it a problem using AI to generate articles? Obviously, I do the citations myself. Maybe I should read the WP policy on using AI. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that bases its output on indiscriminate data-trawling from all over the web (including Wikipedia, along with vast quantities of even-less-WP:RS-compliant material). Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that, as an inherent consequence of this algorithm, will routinely 'hallucinate' false statements (along with citations etc) where it struggles to cobble together plausible text. And yes, it is 'a problem' to post any article you have not written yourself citing sources you have yourself read, to Wikipedia. This would apply whether you obtained it from an LLM, via an Ouija board, or from some bloke down the pub. Articles are supposed to be written by contributors, based on material they have obtained from the sources they have cited. That's what contributing an article entails. Not leaving it to some bullshit-bot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is well put. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is against Wikipedia policy to use AI to help you write, as long as you proof-read and double-check the text. Submitting AI-generated text without reading it is against the rules, but it isn't against the rules to use AI to write it. Just like it isn't against the rules to use the AI tools embedded in graphics programs to make images. Just like it isn't against the rules to use scripts and bots to perform tasks on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, it is against the rules to generate new images from AI prompts, or upscale existing ones. And bots have to be approved. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is against the rules to generate images with AI, but it isn't against the rules to use AI assistance when making or editing images. The distinction came up in the RFC on use of AI in medical images. Editors pointed out that some programs (like Photoshop) come with AI built-in. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I know, I started that RfC. I was just pointing out that things weren't as unregulated as it may seem. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure. And I was just trying to clear up that "using AI" has degrees to it, so that the editor who asked isn't afraid to use AI to spell-check or something like that in the course of writing. The verb "use" is ambiguous and vague. We already say "generate" and "assist", which are better verbs to use when talking about AI, imo. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

AI to spellcheck is interesting. I must be from the future, since every computer I've used in the last couple decades has spellcheck built in, no ChatGPT needed...

Someone could use an LLM to "generate" a rote table perfectly, while another could use it to "assist" in producing made up citations for human-written text, so I don't see how that categorization is useful here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that this is the second time that this user makes an AI-generated review of the same GA, after Talk:King of My Heart/GA1 last month, where they had explicitly been told that this was not sufficient for a review. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in the first GAN of the same article (Talk:King of My Heart/GA1) I had told Jorge906 that an AI review is probably not legit. Somehow they come back for GA2 of the same article with AI... Ippantekina (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Given your latest edits to The Red Tour, stating that content is translated from Vietnamese, I hope you are willing to state that you can read Vietnamese yourself at a level sufficient to be sure the translation is accurate, and are not relying on machine translation to do that for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This user is still using AI to edit articles... I dropped them a message on their talk page to temporarily halt all of their AI edits. Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They should probably just be indeffed as NOTHERE... JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And this: Talk:King of My Heart/GA2. No need for AI if you're just going to wordlessly tick the boxes. Well, thanks for all your attempts to turn this around, folks, but I'll call it here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator backlog for speedy deletion F8

Hi, there's a 305 file backlog for WP:F8 deletions(!). They're pretty easy to deal with, so help in clearing would be appreciated! —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Konnichiwa222 - disruptive edits and ECP evasion

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.

---

@Konnichiwa222 have been engaged in edits that are nonconstructive, biased, pushing POV WP:POVPUSH, unexplained content removals, re-adding reverted content without discussion and violating wikipedia polices.

They were also previously warned by other editors. They have also removed or blanked other editors warnings on their talk page without any reply.

They have also tried to evade wp:ecp here and edited Flag of Israel right after

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_during_the_Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1292218192 ( reverted before by another editor, and you are adding it again )

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_7_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1292224342

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=prev&oldid=1292008071

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1290430715 ( removal of links and texts, and npov violations )

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_during_the_Gaza_war&diff=prev&oldid=1287655613

There are probably more - but can find if needed Cinaroot (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit at 'List of states with limited recognition' is amazingly bad. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1291780456 They have tried to do it multiple times Cinaroot (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They were also accused of dishonest edit summaries for this edit by another editor here Cinaroot (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a user who is extended confirmed (which they are, and have been since 16th April) can "evade ECP"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

They had edit count of less than 500 on April 16th. they made several edits to Category:2019 anime films to reach 500 edits and got ECP on April 16th. Cinaroot (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Whats interesting is here you can see repeated edits and reverts of the same content. But you cannot see that edit history here Cinaroot (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot Those edits are all to different pages - note the years are different. They made one edit to each category then immediately reverted it, making a total of 122 pointless edits to game ec [60]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

haha.. completely missed it. Cinaroot (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. The link was unclear what was being pointed at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely topic banned Konnichiwa222 (talk · contribs) from all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This is implemented as a contentious topic restriction. — Newslinger talk 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

While I focused on a-i because that's one of my top topic areas I'm interested in, the problematic behavior extends to other areas as well. So a temporary or permanent site-wide block may also be appropriate, IMO.

Cinaroot (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Since we are in a noticeboard discussion, it would be helpful if you or anyone else could share evidence of the conduct issues in other topic areas here, so that it can be evaluated.​ — Newslinger talk 17:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. After Konnichiwa222 deleted this noticeboard discussion in Special:Diff/1292570392, I indefinitely  Blocked them for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 18:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - probably a sock too. do we need a sock investigation ? Cinaroot (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, when you write the blocking message here Special:Contributions/Konnichiwa222 - I think you need a special URL so that the message can be easily retrieved in the future (when the discussions here are archived). Just a small tip. Cinaroot (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence that links Konnichiwa222 to a suspected sockpuppeteer, then please file a sockpuppet investigation to have it examined.

As for the block message, any link to a discussion that has since been archived automatically triggers a pop-up message with a link with the archived discussion; see WP:ANI#Letting other admins know about this board for an example. I suppose I can use a link like Special:GoToComment/c-Cinaroot-20250527065700-Konnichiwa222_-_disruptive_edits_and_ECP_evasion that goes directly to the first discussion comment, and I'll think about doing this next time. Thanks.​ — Newslinger talk 19:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes - that pop-up doesn't work. I know about this Help:Permanent link I don't know how about Special:GoToComment

So it would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1292584656#Konnichiwa222_-_disruptive_edits_and_ECP_evasion

See eg. Special:Contributions/Thinker78 Cinaroot (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to use Special:Permalink if the discussion were already closed, but I did use it in the topic ban notice. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

yes - that make sense. ty. Cinaroot (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Emperor Nobuyuki (talk · contribs) has just been CheckUser-blocked as a sockpuppet of Konnichiwa222. This sockpuppet account also made unconstructive edits to multiple pages before it was blocked. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 28 May 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.

Ms. Hanna Wendot Cheptumo

l want to create article for MS.Hanna Wendot who is a current Cabinet Secretary, Gender, Culture, The Arts and Heritage and in Kenya.creation of this page is currently restricted to administrators, kindly advice me on what to do.Thank you Ngangaesther (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ngangaesther: That title doesn't appear to be protected. Rather, it appears you are using mathematical bold characters rather than actual letters. This happens sometimes if you use ctrl+v instead of ctrl+⇧ Shift+v with formatted text. Please try Hanna Wendot Cheptumo instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

P.S., since your userpage says you work for the Kenyan National Library Service... If you know anyone who works on Parliament's website, you should tell them that they should be using <b>...</b> tags to boldface things, not mathematical bold characters as they have here. Doing it the way they're doing breaks a lot of things, as you can see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply; I am now able to create the article. Ngangaesther (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any restriction either, but if it still doesn't work try Draft:Hanna Wendot Cheptumo (or Draft:Hanna Cheptumo?). CMD (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review and Resolution Regarding Block on Mohegan-Pequot language Article

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

---

(discussion in question can be found here)

Hello Administrators,

I understand and respect the need for moderation to maintain Wikipedia’s quality and standards, and I acknowledge that I have been blocked from editing the Mohegan-Pequot language article. However, I kindly ask for a careful review of the version of the article I contributed compared to the current one.

My edits were made thoughtfully and constructively. I extensively reworded and reorganized the article to improve clarity, accuracy, and respect for the Mohegan language and community. The repeated reversions by other editors seem more focused on undoing my changes rather than genuinely improving the article. This pattern of reversion without meaningful engagement resembles an edit war on their part rather than a collaborative effort. I am trying to enhance the article, yet I am the one being blocked.

I want to be very clear that I am not whining, not desperate, and not trying to start a fight. This is not about me wanting to cause conflict or undermine others. My sole intention has always been to help improve the article with accurate, respectful, and up-to-date information. I understand there have been accusations that I am acting entitled or unwilling to compromise, such as claims that I want to “delete all of it” or that I “just can’t learn how to take a loss.” These statements do not reflect at all any of the language I have been using througout this. I have given clear, respectful, and factual responses throughout. I am open to discussion and collaboration, but what I have encountered instead is repeated reverting of well-sourced improvements without meaningful dialogue. This isn’t about silencing anyone or disregarding existing content; I just want to make sure the article reflects the best available knowledge and honors the community it represents.

If the other editors genuinely care about the quality of the article, I would expect them to build upon or refine the work I contributed instead of reverting it back to a less accurate and less clear version. This lack of cooperation and refusal to engage constructively is discouraging—not only to me but potentially to future editors wishing to improve this topic.

The article receives around 60 views per day, so maintaining outdated or inaccurate information misleads readers seeking trustworthy knowledge about the Mohegan language. Given my background and close involvement with the Mohegan Language Reclamation Project, I am deeply concerned about the continued presence of such content.

I am willing to accept if the administrators decide to keep certain information that I consider outdated or inaccurate. However, the ongoing undoing of my constructive edits without any attempt to improve or discuss the content is problematic and unfair.

Therefore, I respectfully request reconsideration of my block and a review of the article’s edit history with these concerns in mind.

Finally, I do not just want to be unblocked—I want this issue resolved in a way that prevents ongoing reverts if the block is lifted, as I anticipate that the same pattern would likely continue. I am open to any suggestions or mediation to find a constructive path forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

—Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP operates on a WP:CONSENSUS model. This means that, if there is a disagreement, then instead of reverting to your prefered version, you need to discuss things and come to a consensus on the article talk page. It is uncool to remove a large swath of existing material from the article without first discussing it, but expect others to merely refine your work. Multiple people reverted you; you can't say everyone else is edit warring and you aren't. This was explained to you in a warning on your user talk page, which you removed, so I'll link to that page again: WP:Edit warring. What should prevent future reverts is you not reverting to your prefered version without getting consensus first.

I think it would be better for you to open a discussion on the article talk page (which you are not blocked from), and depending on how you act at that discussion, we could then talk about unblocking you from editing the article. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 29 May 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.

Lost access to all my account

Moved from WP:ANI § Lost access to all my account

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I am User:Linkin Prankster. I lost access to my account as well as other account User:Roman Reigns Fanboy as Wiki is asking me to enter the verification code they sent on my email address. Problem is, I don't remember the emails for either of the account. I have messaged Wikimedia yesterday, but still haven't heard back. Please get my accounts restored to me. Supreme Rankling (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to know that’s your account? I don’t know if admins can help you, but it’s a security issue if they can. I’d recommend creating a new account. Cinaroot (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Supreme Rankling: We can't help you recover an account; only the WMF can do that, and sadly they often aren't able to help if you don't know your email address. Did you ever email anyone through Special:EmailUser? If so, they'll know the email addresses you registered the accounts with, so you might want to reach out to them. All the admin team can do right now is give you back extendedconfirmed, and that's only if you have some way to prove that you are LP/RRF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Email is generally the only viable option. However, Special:EmailUser only works if you have an Email address(es) with those accounts. I agree with Cinaroot. You're probably better off creating a new account. Pibx (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well they don't need to create a new account because this is the new account. Although I guess they can still create a new new one if they don't want this to be their permanent username. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's true. In fact, now that I think about it, the only thing that matters is EC. A User may request EC before meeting 30/500 if they have another account that is already EC. But if they cannot access the older account, and the older account doesn't have an Email Address, there's generally nothing much that can be done. Pibx (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well you can check my IP address. It'll turn out to be the same as Linkin Prankster. I don't know how else to prove I'm the same person. Supreme Rankling (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I request an EC btw? Supreme Rankling (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

OP, try sending an email via "email this user" to the lost accounts; at least LinkinPrankster has email enabled. I don't know how many email-adresses you got, but there's at least a chance you will receive a push-message that "you've got mail". Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Check this: Extended confirmed users. Since Email is enabled, there's a chance it can work. Pibx (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I've put a request there. Supreme Rankling (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Supreme Rankling: Are you sure your IP address hasn't changed? Per MW:Help:Extension:EmailAuth and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 219#Now need to use email code to login?, most likely you are only getting these emails since you're trying to login with a new IP. Maybe even with a new user agent. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm using the same mobile networks I always have. Vodafone Idea (Vi) and Airtel. Check the IP ranges of Linkin Pranskter, and you'll find I used the same mobile networks there too. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Try emailing ca@wikimedia.org. I believe they have an account recovery procedure. I don't know if you qualify, but it's worth a shot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Did that yesterday, no response or acknowledgement. Supreme Rankling (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It will generally take a few business days. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

They did reply now, they rejected my request. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

My request to restore the account has been rejected. Supreme Rankling (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I sent emails to both accounts for which you do not have access.

If receive the emails, you still have access to the accounts. If you do not have access to those emails, then you best forget about them.

If you do gain access to your old accounts, you should deactivate all your accounts except for one, as per WP:MULTIPLE. Peaceray (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember the emails for any of the accounts, there's no point in sending the emails. Supreme Rankling (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't have access to the original email accounts at all anymore? And you don't know of any other accounts on other websites that you might have signed up with using the same email accounts? --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't even remember if they had an email to begin with. Supreme Rankling (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't even sure if there is an email associated with these accounts and, even if they did have one, you can't remember the email address (and so probably can't log into it), then I see no way forward here. You'll have to accept that those accounts are gone but also list them on your new User page. If it helps, you should know that this same problem has happened in the past with editors who have been active for much longer than you. Just remember with your current account to enable email account and write down that account's information. Do it right now if you haven't already done it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Supreme Rankling, I agree with Liz that there unfortunately doesn't seem to be a way to recover your previous accounts. I recommend using a secure password manager to record your passwords and emails going forward, which would prevent this issue from happening again. — Newslinger talk 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is Scorpions13256 editing under his new account. Up until I came across this thread, I had no idea that the WMF could recover accounts. On my original account that I created in 2010, I accumulated 200,000 edits. My email in this account and my other two accounts was simply (Redacted) this entire time. I sent emails with all of them. Oshwah also has access to technical information verifying that Scorpions13256 and Scorpions1325 are the same account. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion at the village pump that concerns the administrator inactivity policy and recall process and might be worthwhile for the community to chime in to. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ban request - Luikerme

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.

---

Luikerme (talk · contribs) is indeffed - I see that @Dbeef: has recently tagged them as a sock of Guilherme Gava Bergami (talk · contribs). They are a persistent socker - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Luikerme. Socks have been blocked by @Discospinster, ScottishFinnishRadish, Lofty abyss, Jake Wartenberg, and Rusalkii:. Their MO is claiming that living people are dead. I am posting here to a) raise awareness of their editing style and b) request a ban. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not needed as they're already considered banned under WP:3X. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They're already globally locked and blocked. Banning them would be like taking the brain out of a decapitated head. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Still, I think it's useful to inform other admins about them if they are prolific sockers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 30 May 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:KingCrazii344

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

---

Can someone talk to User:KingCrazii344 who is upset and thinks I'm disrespectful for revdeling his contributions at Aragats BT - a club he says he now co-owns. He obviously doesn't want to hear from me again. Nthep (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you need verification KingCrazii344 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As I stated before I am not going to change my stamens I want to know who I need to reach out to. So I can avoid these type of issues KingCrazii344 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 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.

Artificial intelligence used by 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.

---

@PRDM 9: seems to be translating content from other wikipedias (French, Spanish etc.) on pages relating to Peru, but, like on Pachacuti, he seems to not pay attention to the article he's editing. He added information already in the article and added two sources, one was a review of the source he wanted to cite, the other is weirdly formatted. He seems to translate very slowly, one paragraph takes several edits. Early edits seem more "human" though, before a weird change occurred. 80.187.83.20 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have notified them about this discussion. 2001:8003:B15F:8000:B596:595D:94E2:529E (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and my area of interest is topics related to the people and countries in Latin America, (including Peru). I have never used nor will use artificial intelligence in working with Wikipedia. The joy of the work is to do the work and translate sentences myself.

By the way, of the two sources that IP has provided, one is not available, and the other I had already included in the text.

I appreciate your interest in my edits. PRDM__9 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I can believe you now that you have answered my concerns, and am sorry for having doubted you were a human editor. However, I didn't provide any sources. I just changed some things to your added sections (and you were the one to add the two additional sources, one is a very negative review of the source you apparently wanted to cite, the other is wrongly formatted). 80.187.74.1 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for unprotection of Dananeer Mobeen

• Dananeer Mobeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page to be unprotected: Dananeer Mobeen Type of unprotection requested: Full unprotection (or user-level pending recreation)

Reason: The article was previously deleted in 2023 following a sockpuppetry case, which also led to its protection. However, Dananeer Mobeen has gained significantly more notability since then. She has emerged as a prominent actress in Pakistan's entertainment industry, with major acting roles in television dramas, brand endorsements, and consistent media coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Given her increased coverage in reputable media outlets and the sustained public interest in her work, I believe she now meets the general notability guidelines and notability criteria for entertainers. I would like to draft a new version of the article based solely on reliable, independent sources.

Requesting that the protection be lifted, so the article can be recreated through the Articles for Creation process or directly in mainspace for review.

Thank you. Behappyyar (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Requests for unprotection should be at WP:RFPU. The article has been deleted five times. Can you identify a couple of sources for a new article? Answer that in an unprotection request, not here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Callanecc, I see you protected Draft:Dananeer Mobeen, if you want to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Even though it's protected, you can still work on it in your own sandbox, then ask again. That way, we'd know what you're planning to publish to that name. It'd help us in making a decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Question(s) regarding my rights on Wikipedia

Hello! Before I ask/request my thing, I want to say that if I’m in the wrong place, feel free to move my message to the correct spot or whatever works best.

Now, onto my question:

I am wondering if it’s possible to give me user rights to give me the ability to delete, move my userspaces without leaving a redirect? It’s annoying having to WP:RFD/WP:CSD each time I don’t want a redirect or something. I think I had another question or more but I can’t remember.

Nevertheless, is this possible without giving me full admin rights? Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 00:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You can apply for Wikipedia:Page mover. Read that page, then go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover to make the request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Tonkarooson, you have to show a need for advanced permissions to be granted one and right now, it doesn't seem like you are doing much page moving. You spend most of your time on your own User pages. But should you be more active in the future on tasks like Patrolling, you might find the Page Mover right helpful to have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the reason why we don't automatically give people admin rights in their own userspace, as far as I know, is because it would create a loophole of users being able to move any page to their userspace and then delete them. It is actually listed in our perennial proposals. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. So, would the better option just to keep doing the speedy deletions I’ve been doing? Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 01:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unban request for ZagrosianSigma

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 accepted the terms of the standard offer last September, tried to request unblock in November, and since then has gone the full standard six months without being caught with their hands in the laundry bin. However, they cannot be unilaterally unblocked due to WP:3X (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Combatuser1), so I am bringing the request here. Their original block, in September 2023, was for disruptive editing (see User talk:Combatuser1). Yamla has found no recent evidence of block evasion. Verbatim request below:

Hello dear Admins, I'm writing again to ask for another chance on Wikipedia in the past I wasn't familiar with the rules and I didn't know that making more than one account (sockpuppeting) wasn't allowed and I also didn't understand that editing without proper sources was serious and is considered vandalizm, I now realize these were serious mistakes that I've done and I regret them.

Some of the things I did was also out of frustration, there were users who kept interfering my edits just undoing them without even reaching out and helping with that what I did was against the rules and most of them were specifically targeting Kurdish related topics on purpose, they tried removing the term Kurdistan in many articles which no one said anything about and I was the only one who was enforced the rules on, I know and understand that the way I responded was unethical and wrongful and I regret every action that I've taken which were against the rules and policies. I've taken time to read the policies and understand them better and if I get another chance to come back to the community I will follow the rules carefully and willingly and I will stay respectful even when I disagree, I just want to contribute positively and help improve articles in a right way. Here is a list of the Sockpuppets I've used that Admin requested me to write them down (These are the only accounts used by me the others are not mine): - User:Combatuser1 (My first account which I've forgotten the password and I can't access it) - User:ImInLoveWithWiki - User:CombatA11 - User:Yeszzzz - User:BeetleJuice0 - User:ITylon - User:FortressKnight - User:KurdianA - User:Victor MacTavish - User:Sarxr - User:Manganese1 - User:RîzgarîKurdîstan - User:HalloKurdish - User:Hihowareyoymate - User:ReconRaptor - User:ZagrosianSigma (My Current Account) I know that it's many and I'm not proud of it, I want to make a new page and I would appreciate it if you guys reconsidered, thank you for taking the time to read this. Best Regards,

ZagrosianSigma

Thanks for your consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I would, however, like to see examples of edits ZagrosianSigma would make if unblocked. JayCubby 17:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  In my view, that is not likely to be helpful since ZS was blocked before they could really become an experienced editor, and so they've never really had much of a chance to learn how to make "good edits". The more relevant question is whether the community believes that ZS has reconsidered their approach and is now willing to learn. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  TBAN seems a good alternative condition then. JayCubby 03:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• A commendably open request. It may be best to strongly advise the avoidance of WP:CT/KURD as part of the unban. CMD (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, although it may be simpler just to make that a TBAN from Kurdish topics an explicit unblock condition, appealable later, rather than potentially inviting edits in a fraught topic before they've built up a track record of constructive editing elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I don't think the conduct was awful enough that we should worry too much about WP:ROPE, but since I believe unblocks ought to designed in a manner in which it's more likely there won't be a reblock, I support this on Rosguill's suggested condition of a topic ban on the Kurdish people and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Even in the unblock request, there are aspersions being cast about the motivations of others in Kurdish topics, so I would be a categorical oppose without the topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, conditional on a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurdish people, language and culture, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support provided the following:

1. the user is given a topic ban on Kurdistan, Kurdish people, and their language and culture (broadly construed),
2. they give examples of edits they'd make, and
3. they make an effort to learn how to become a good editor.

They should know they will be on a tight leash if they do get unblocked, but if they're OK with that and the conditions I listed out, I see no reason why we shouldn't give them a WP:LASTCHANCE. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as the last chance. There is no issue with the topic ban. Orientls (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Following some conversation on their talk page, they've agreed to abide by a topic ban: Im okay with accepting the topic ban for the time being. I’ll focus on editing in other areas, build some experience, and hopefully return to that space later with a stronger track record. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Following the discussion at User talk:ZagrosianSigma leaves me unable to support lifting the ban. ZagrosianSigma is, frankly, exhausting and self-admittedly doesn't handle matters appropriately. It was like pulling teeth to get them to accept a topic ban and this doesn't give me hope they've truly reformed. I'm just one voice and I expect the consensus will end up lifting the community ban and imposing a topic ban and I sincerely hope this is sufficient. I just don't think it will be. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support with tban. I hadn't intended to !vote but I feel the need to be a counterweight to Yamla's oppose, because I've been part of that same conversation and more or less agree with Yamla on the diagnosis, but disagree on the prognosis and next steps. Six months from now, I am sure that we will see either another unban request (if this one fails) or a request to raise the tban (if this unban succeeds). I am also sure that no unban request will succeed unless it is conditional on a tban. I do not think that six (or 12, 18, 24, etc) months of not editing Wikipedia will make this editor a better Wikipedia editor than six (or etc) months of editing while tbanned would do. And since I do not think their behaviour was so egregious that it would be dangerous to allow them to return to editing topics unrelated to Kurdistan, I think we ought to lift the ban, and allow them to learn. We may get a productive editor out of doing so; if it turns out that we don't, well, we can always reblock if they cause further problems. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 31 May 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.

Abusive editing

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

---

Is it acceptable for any user to remove material from a page with the 'explanation' "Was this edited by someone with a learning disability?" published in this history? Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That "explanation" was not used to justify the removal of the content you're complaining about. If you're going to make accusations about other people, it helps to get your story correct first. I removed the attendance info from 2024–25 United Rugby Championship because it accurately fits the definition of WP:FANCRUFT. The edit summary you're complaining about was a glib remark about how badly and inconsistently the article was presented, which I have now fixed. If you're the editor of the article and you don't have a learning disability, that's all you have to say. – PeeJay 13:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PeeJay, if you take a moment for reflection, can you see any issue with an edit summary like that? Do you intend to use them more in the future? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PeeJay, we need your attention here, rather than on routine editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No, you have my assurance that I won't make any further comments like that. – PeeJay 13:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That is a completely unacceptable edit summary[61]. Fram (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And doubling down here is even more unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't say I'm too keen, either, on disability jibes, 'glib' or otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. Is this an isolated incident or is therean endemic problem that we have to address? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for three months due to a history of such comments while obviously knowing better. The duration is a longer than I'd normally use because their extensive block log demonstrates that they're willing to sit out blocks and not adjust their behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The subject of the ban, and the bigoted ablist comment that caused it, 'PeeJay', appears to have come straight here to try and remove this notice, which in the circumstances of a block for what turns out to be a repeat offender who clearly doesn't intend to change, seems an unacceptable challenge to the authority of the block Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken. No one has tried to remove this notice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Mpjmcevoybeta removed a legitimate comemnt by PeeJay. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I did, unintentionally. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, apologies all around. ~~ Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, an error with my browser misled me. Sorry, guys. ~~ Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any more that needs saying here. Can someone who knows how please close this before any more mistakes are made? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 3 June 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.