Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	0	67	67
TfD	0	0	1	12	13
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	14	15
RfD	0	0	0	10	10
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 65 sockpuppet investigations
• 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 11 requests for RD1 redaction
• 12 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 63 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 37 Copyright problems

Latin American politics TBAN appeal

Kind regards. I'm starting this thread in order to appeal my current TBAN on Latin American politics decided in this ANI discussion. An ArbCom case was opened shortly after the closure to address the remainer of the dispute. My hope is that over a year after the closure and editing about other topics helps to earn the community's trust back.

There are three main reasons why I would like to appeal the topic ban: it is too broad and has unintended consequences, the measures taken by the Arbitration Committee have been effective in addressing the issue, and new information about the dispute was disclosed after the ANI discussion was closed (specifically WMrapids' sockpuppetry). I feel that a Catch-22 happened because of this: the ANI closing admin commented that the ArbCom could decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban,[1] but at the same time the ArbCom commented that extraordinary circumstances were needed to override a community decision.[2]

Regardless of the circumstances, the main issue that opened the ANI discussion was my dispute and removal of information. I could have definitely have handled the dispute better, and in turn I can learn how to improve. I pledge to provide detailed explanations in the talk page if I argue that content is not backed by the sources, as well as continue using edit summaries and maintenance tags with this purpose.

The current TBAN not only covers politics, but loosely related topics as well, including history, society and crime, and likewise not only biographies about politicians are affected, but also journalists, activists, historians, political scientists, and so on. The topic ban also affects maintenance work that I would normally do, including but not limited to categories and navigational infoboxes, or small fixes like spelling or links.

If the ban is repealed, my main goal would be translating articles from Spanish to English, including for Women in Red events, as well as continuing with maintenance, such as populating categories, improving nav boxes and fixing typos.

I understand if the topic ban is decided to be kept. The only thing that I ask is for an opportunity to discuss the situation and to make an appeal. Courtesy ping to @Simonm223:, who asked to be notified. Best wishes and many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to provide a bit more context, the topic ban was imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1152#NoonIcarus and "Failed verification" in April 2024 and, ironically, User:WMrapids, the editor who instigated this review of NoonIcarus, was blocked a month later at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies so they do not require notification of this topic ban appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I regularly came across NoonIcarus on South American election articles and they were one of the most persistent POV-pushers I saw on any set of election articles. The topic ban was well overdue and really should have been implemented years earlier. I am not convinced that this behaviour would not return, and I don't see their absence from the topic sphere as a great loss. Number 57 22:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. If you encounter sources in the future that meet our normal reliability standards but that you have concerns about from an ideological perspective how would you handle this situation? Simonm223 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment @Simonm223: Thank you for your question. Sources that meet reliability standards, as established in WP:RS/P or newspapers of record, should not be removed. Besides reliability, the remaining important aspect is due weight, and reliable sources reflect a mainstream point of view, so that usually isn't a problem.

An ideological perspective can be addressed with attribution and neutral wording, where MOS:WTW is a good guideline. If there's a point of view that is not reflected, I would seek to provide content backed by an equally reliable source, but only provided it is also a mainstream point of view. Last but not least, discussing these differences with the editors always helps. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If there's a point of view that is not reflected, I would seek to provide content backed by an equally reliable source, but only provided it is also a mainstream point of view.

So you would not include the minority views as required by due weight?

Besides reliability, the remaining important aspect is due weight, and reliable sources reflect a mainstream point of view, so that usually isn't a problem.

I disagree that reliable sources agree on mainstream views. If they do not share the majority opinion, you would exclude and delete any minority opinion? I find the response above concerning. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (not an admin.)

I have never said or implied that minority views should be excluded. WP:DUE, which I cited, clearly states that If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Neither do reliable sources have to "agree on mainstream views"; that's what the neutrality principle relies on: the inclusion of all the mainstream POV, even when they can be opposite to each other, because the end purpose is contrast.

Views that should be excluded are WP:FRINGE points of view because, like the policy states: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Weak support - That TBAN should have been partially lifted. Stopping Noon from editing unrelated areas would be cumbersome. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence. If it helps, I should add that there's still an interaction ban between WMrapids and I placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics#Remedies, meaning that I currently can't edit in articles that they edited or created subject to the dispute even if the TBAN is lifted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a 1RR restriction I find NoonIcarus' response satisfactory but the proof is in the pudding. Lifting the topic ban with a revert restriction would allow them to do their planned work with some security against a return to old patterns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging this to reset the archive clock in hopes of further discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Since the Topic Ban (of April 4, 2024) and iBan with WMrapids, NoonIcarus has had similar problems on other projects leading to a block on Commons and further iBan with WMRapids on December 16, 2024. It is worth reading the comments of the closing admin. that begin:

After reviewing the situation, I have decided to indefinitely block NoonIcarus and impose a two-way interaction ban between WMrapids and NoonIcarus. Despite prior sanctions (blocks, bans) on other projects, NoonIcarus has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including targeting WMrapids in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as cross-wiki hounding. This aligns with concerns raised during the ArbCom case and subsequent sanctions on other projects. Similar patterns of antagonistic behavior from NoonIcarus across Wikimedia projects have been pointed out, too. Their interactions here suggest an inability or unwillingness to adapt to collaborative norms.

Even after this, the behavior continued, leading to a voluntary iBan between the two instituted Jan 15, 2025.

There were also a few cases where he skirted his topic ban, resulting in warnings from other users. June 7, 2024,June 21, 2024 Despite these warnings, on July 22, 2024, he made 4 edits regarding Venezuelan refugees. He also welcomed three users whose only edits were Venezuela political:

(1) August 6, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2605:B100:121:A764:3966:79F9:A262:F0D (talk), whose only contribution is about Venezuelan politics--specifically an edit to the talk page of Nicolás Maduro.

(2) August 6, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2605:B100:13D:5CF9:3C62:246E:4611:77AF (talk), whose only two contributions are about Venezuelan politics--specifically edits to Nicolás Maduro’s talk page disputing the election results.

(3) August 7, 2024, Welcomes IP user 2600:8804:1397:8100:A5AB:2650:3673:36C1, whose only two contributions are about Venezuelan politics: 2024 Venezuelan protests, 2024 Venezuelan presidential election.

Even this edit from today appears to violate the topic ban.

I think NoonIcarus needs more time without drama before he should be allowed to come back and edit on Latin American politics, and because of the continued drama against WMRapids, the iBan should stay intact.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (Not an admin.)

See also two more recent diffs on es.Wiki --David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have had virtually no other disputes as big as this one with any other editor than for over a year, either here or any other projects, and the only exception has been WMrapids, who incidentally was indefinitely blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia after these interactions ([2]). What I can do in the meantime is learn from my mistake and improve my interactions in the future with other editors: after these interactions afterwards, I requested a voluntary interaction ban in Wikidata weeks before it was implemented: [3] If this is still a concern, this appeal is unrelated to the interaction ban, which has to be appealed to the ArbCom, and only deals with the topic ban.

I have gone out of my way and beyond to respect the current topic ban in every one of my edits. This means avoiding changes remotely related to the politics or as small as fixing typos, adding diacritical accents, or categorizing. I have self reverted the changes the few times that I've realized could be a violation thereof shortly after ([4]), regardless of how small. I have asked to the closing admin when I have been in doubt about the scope: the last time, I asked if expanding an article about a 19th century boat could be considered a violation of the ban:[5], and they agreed that it could:[6]; you can't be too careful. After creating Category:Members of the Venezuelan Academy of Medicine, I didn't populate it because I realized that all of its entries in the English Wikipedia were either Ministries of Health or related to politics at some point, and as such I wasn't able to save it from deletion. Twice have I have been asked in my talk page for help in related topics (1, 2), and twice have I declined.

I have stricken my comment in the Ryan Vasquez's deletion discussion ([7]) once I realized about this relation that you mention, hoping to comply with the topic ban as best as possible, but this should be a perfect example of how broad and how reaching it is: Ryan Vasquez is a musician with no relations with politics whatsoever other than being "the first Venezuelan on the Municipal Council for Cultural Policies in Humaitá, Amazonas". While the ban is in place, this is exactly the kind of edits that I regularly avoid and will continue to seek avoiding. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Tornheim's comments. Additionally, I find NoonIcarus trying to diminish what is a community sanction on their behaviour on the basis of another editor being blocked for sockpuppetry to be troubling. Also, NoonIcarus has made approximately 3727 edits in the 15 months since they were TBAN'd, when prior to the ban they were making over 1,000 edits a month. I'd want to see a larger sample, to give me confidence that the disruption wouldn't resume if the TBAN was lifted. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record: I'm not citing WMrapids sockpuppetry as a reason for the appeal due to its sake alone, but rather its consequences. They were an editor with whom I had previously had editorial differences before the use of the account, the community did not know about this fact or the previous background, and the ANI discussion afterwards was largely lopsided. This was discussed more thoroughly at User talk:WMrapids#Appeal request. In no way I mean to downplay my own shortcomings with all of this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Why mention them at all? Yes they started the discussion which lead to your TBAN, but it was community consensus which imposed it. Their sockpuppetry has zero bearing on what the community decided. TarnishedPath^talk 13:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor with previous warnings and sanctions is not the same as a seemingly new editor unknown to the community, without knowing the context. It influences the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

In that discussion it was community consensus that you be sanctioned for your conduct. Unless you are suggesting that the ANI discussion was affected by their socking, then the conduct of the other editor has no bearing on the sanction placed on you by community consensus as consequence of your conduct. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Given that most of the opposition to this appeal is either based on diffs that are almost a year old (surely you can do better than bringing up ancient grudges), based on interactions with WNrapids (the interaction ban preventing such will remain in force) or both, I must support this appeal because I find neither argument convincing. And I consider TarnishedPath's suggestion that 3000 edits isn't enough to evaluate absurd; of course if you topic ban someone from one of their areas of interest they will edit less. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: I do see the validity of your concern with the age of most of the diffs. The main issues I was focusing on were the repetition of the same behavior despite sanctions in multiple projects and the continued skirting of the topic ban (even a few days ago)--despite repeated warnings on this project. I have been looking at his es.Wiki edits--where he is far more active. I plan to share (either here or as an addendum to my original post) more recent diffs exhibiting similar behavior to that which led to the topic ban.

I agree with Number 57's comment. And although I thought Simonm223's question was a good one, unlike Simonm223, I have concerns about the response. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As I review NoonIcarus's recent behavior on es.Wiki after the dispute was resolved with WMrapids in Jan 15, 2025, I came across these two very recent diffs that show just the kind of problematic edits that got him topic banned here:

• July 21, 2025 #1 claims that the U.S. State Department is a reliable source needing no attribution, and removes two other attributions from L.A. Times reporter writing about Venezuelan politics in an opinion section.
• July 21, 2025 #2 In this edit, NoonIcarus not only removes the attribution to an opinion by a Washington Post reporter, he has misrepresented what was written in the second source: NoonIcarus makes it sound like the charges the Attorney General filed against Lopez for attacking the airport agents were in retaliation for Lopez's filing a complaint against the agents first. There is nothing in either article to suggest the Lopez filed a complaint first.

Compare his approach to these opinion pieces to his past comments about the reliability of an opinion/analysis.

I have some others that I might show, but I felt these two are good examples.

I also observe that NoonIcarus is editing at a rate of >1,500 edits per month in July 2025 (about 3x the rate of en.wiki for July 2025), and I believe a substantial portion on es.Wiki are Venezuelan politics. In 2023 on es.Wiki he was only making 500 edits/month and 1,000 edits/month on en.Wiki. So if he comes back, I believe we can expect to see a lot of these kinds of biased edits compromising our Venezuelan political articles moving from es.Wiki to en.Wiki.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this a complaint about content or about behavior? This message gives the impression that your main concern is only that I edit about Venezuela, and not about disruption per se. If you look at the edits, the content is already covered by other non-opinion sources (Globovisión) or still leaves attribution (saying simply "Chávez's critics say (...)" instead of "According to the Los Angeles Times, Chávez's critics say (...)" and keeping LA's attribution for the opinion "the murder of his bodyguard was intended to send a message"). The Washington Post opinion piece doesn't mention anything about the airport incident, and the information about the complaint is clearly stated in the second source, unlike what Tornheim claims and was not mentioned in the article before:

Original version: López acudió a la Fiscalía a denunciar la agresión que dijo sufrir en el aeropuerto por funcionarios de la Disip, precisó que llevaba toda la documentación para sustentar su denuncia y admitió que 'efectivamente le había tomado fotos al funcionario que lo retuvo'.
Translation López went to the Public Prosecutor's Office to report the assault he said he suffered at the airport by DISIP officials. He stated that he had all the documentation to support his complaint and admitted that he had "indeed taken photos of the official who detained him."

While we're talking about it, like Tornheim mentions, two edits are a very poor representation of my activity in es.wiki. I have started 507 articles there since 2 April 2024 (and counting). There are a lot of them that are translations for the LGBT Wikiproject monthly events, one of which talks about human rights abuses during the bipartisanship period in Venezuela, the Law of Vagrants and Crooks. It cannot be translated into English due to the topic ban. The articles also include pages about the Venezuelan War of Independence: the Cariaco Congress, Francisco de Miranda's expedition, the Kingston attack, the San Mateo Capitulation and the Trial of Manuel Piar. Again, all related to politics one way or another.

Last but not least, I should also point out to the translations of the J.G.G. v. Trump and W.M.M. v. Trump articles and that I started National TPS Alliance v. Noem et al. even before the en.wiki, all related to the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador, where I have edited in Spanish but is also inside the scope of the TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest David that part of my preference for support (with a 1RR restriction) is because indefinite isn't supposed to mean forever. I will admit that I share some of your concerns, if I didn't I wouldn't have suggested the 1RR restriction as a condition, but I do think NoonIcarus has sat the topic out long enough to give them a trial return. Should they proceed to go back to non-neutral editing practices the 1RR restriction should ameliorate any immediate effect and it would be easy to revisit the topic ban and say "maybe we were premature." I have not considered es.wp because Spanish is my fourth language, I can read it reasonably but not with considerable nuance and I rarely speak it, and don't participate in the es.wp project and, as such, I don't feel my knowledge of es.wp is sufficient to determine if their edits there are appropriate there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that (a) their POV pushing went on for years before the topic ban and (b) a previous sanction prior to the topic ban did not address it. I do not see any potential positives from letting them back into the politics topic sphere and lots of potential issues as it will likely be hard to remove them again when the POV inevitably returns. Number 57 20:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Notability (music) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: voorts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 16:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Special:Diff/1300487471

Reasoning: I do not believe that the closer properly evaluated consensus. First, the close only addressed one side of the debate; it summarized why editors promoting an expansion of the guideline (option 1) opposed the status quo or a more restrictive interpretation of the guideline (options 2/3), but didn't address the arguments in support of option 2/3 or explain why they were outweighed by those in favor of option 1. Second, the close implies that those opposing options 2/3 are correct in their assessment of Option 2 potentially introducing (or in Option 3's case, leaving-put) language potentially superseding the general notability guideline ("GNG") and/or worried Option 2/Option 3 creates a conflict with the notability guideline ("N") as a whole. But that was the whole debate in this RfC, and those supporting options 2/3 made significant arguments about why this guidance makes sense in the context of the guideline and why the normal relationship between SNGs/GNGs (which was itself discussed and argued in this RfC) isn't as clear cut as was described in the close. Finally, I don't believe that the close adequately grappled with the argument that this RfC was prompted by a non-issue; editors supporting option 1 largely rested their arguments on articles being wrongly deleted, but (as far as I can tell) they couldn't point to a single article that failed at AfD that shouldn't have.

Closer (slakr)

Just a quick note: I specifically encouraged this person to raise their concerns here if they felt I was in error, so thanks in advance to everyone for helping us both check it out. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 10:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (NSONG)

I concur with the closure. Buffs (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. Seeing the discussion at hand in the context of broader, higher-level consensus (especially as documentet in our policies and guidelines) is an important part of the closer's job, and I think the closer of this discussion handled it well. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Of course one can always write a longer and more detailed closing statement, but that's not really a substantive complaint to bring up. That's not my complaint. My complaint is that the closer didn't address an entire side of the debate. Closers are required to accurately summarize the discussion, weigh between the arguments, and evaluate consensus. Merely reiterating what one side said, asserting that there's consensus for that side, and not evaluating counterarguments reads more like a super vote than a neutral close. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'll also note that this discussion involves a potentially major change to the notability guidelines. I would expect a closer to very clearly explain why one side has consensus, not just assert that it does. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I get what you mean. I just wasn't being clear enough. What I meant to say is that some aspect not being covered in the closing statement does not mean that the closer did not weigh that aspect appropriately. While we may wish slakr had dedicated some words to describing the other viewpoints in their own terms, we cannot from that conclude that they did not understand and consider them, that is, that the substantive result of the discussion, "rough consensus for Option 1", was wrong. That's not to say an omission cannot be indicative of a problem, but I personally do not see that being the case here, right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. I see a pretty strong consensus that an SNG such as NSONG should not override the GNG. As noted in the discussion, this was settled at a 2017 RFC. WP:SIGCOV is also pretty direct in saying a topic (which in this case would be a song) "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for it to count as significant coverage. I realize the closer suggested you come here, but I really don't understand what more you're looking for. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't understand what more you're looking for I think my statement is pretty clear. What part do you not understand? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  The 2017 RfC you're citing is about NSPORTS and the opposite issue of too-loose SNGs eliminating the need for SIGCOV. The issue in this RfC was primarily about WP:NOPAGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  That RfC also ended in no consensus, which is clearly how this one should have closed given the significant diverging views about whether we should have articles for every song that gets SIGCOV vs. covering those songs in album articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Participants (NSONG)

• Endorse. Notability guidelines are too complicated and open to interpretation to form a good basis for subsequent incremental policy making that is rational and takes the whole system into account. Most editors do not know that much about notability and use their natural good sense of what kind of articles to create and avoid creating. Notability is a mechanism of social control against the problematic users who lack this commonsense compass and want to expand the scope of the encyclopedia against the majority's instinct of it's supposed to look like. Reasonable people don't need notability guidelines. With an RfC like this, it's fine to count votes and see if a fire starts somewhere later on. If we start getting tons of ridiculous song articles, we'll deal with that issue then. If it turns out that we can't deal with it, that's okay too, Wikipedia will also be a Songpedia, and that's not that terrible. I like music. —Alalch E. 22:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I will not deny that supporters of Option 2 and other alternatives knew they were gunning for an SNG stricter than the GNG (by excluding certain sources), and the close seems to frame this as a misunderstanding or some kind of policy-violating LOCALCON outcome (it isn't; WP:NCORP, another SNG is explicitly stricter than the GNG, for good reason). In this regard, voorts is correct that the close does not properly reflect the valid arguments made in the discussion. However, the outcome clearly matches the consensus of the participants: Otherwise acceptable sources should not be disqualified solely for being part of an album review. (I'm obviously biased, since the close at times echoes my !vote exactly. It is almost uncanny. But I suppose that's why this section is separate.) Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse, conditional upon rewording the second and third paragraphs of the closing statement. See my discussion with voorts in the discussion section. I am not comfortable endorsing the closing statement in its current state. It is a poor summary of the arguments made and the policy background and almost reads like a supervote. Toadspike [Talk] 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (NSONG)

• I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will opine that I think having SNGs being more restrictive than GNG is a slope we really don't want to start tobogganing down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone was arguing for that though. The disputed guidance is about inherited notability and when not to split content. That's yet another reason why this close is flawed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Toadspike: At least from my perspective, if the only sources are album reviews, then the song should be covered in the album article, rather than its own article. That's because notability is not inherited and for almost every album, it best serves our readers to have a single article that goes over the whole album. I think the guideline has reflected that consensus for a while; the opposing side here was not endorsing some kind of policy-violating LOCALCON outcome. But, if you and others want to deal with a dozen different fan-crufty articles that survey two or three reviews that each devote a sentence to a song for every single album article on Wikipedia, have fun with that. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you that just because a topic is notable doesn't mean we have to have a separate article on it. However, if a review would otherwise count toward the GNG, there's no reason for an identical review within a longer piece on the whole album suddenly disqualifies it. That is why I personally went for Option 1.

  I think you have also misread the crux of my comment here: Option 2 and Option 3 would have been perfectly valid outcomes of this RfC, if that had been the consensus of participants. The close seems to argue that regardless of the arguments made, Options 2 and 3 were invalid from the start. This implies that the closer believes these Options 2 and 3 would violate LOCALCON. That argument is wrong, as SNGs can be stricter than the GNG; there simply wasn't consensus for that in this RfC. (The close doesn't explicitly say this; instead, the close pushes this line of argumentation onto "Multiple comments" and, as you pointed out, does not address counterarguments.)

  I think we agree that the second and third paragraphs of the closing statement are poorly phrased. I believe that if the closer had worded them more carefully, we would not be here. Toadspike [Talk] 16:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thryduulf said it best: [8]. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  I did misunderstand your point about LOCALCON. Thank you for clarifying. I'm not willing to do that much work adding reasoning to a close that's not there for a closer whose response to a close challenge is "ask another admin to change my close" and who seemingly doesn't know that close reviews are a thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts: You've made it abundantly clear that you're intensely dissatisfied with either my work on this, the outcome, or both, but I genuinely don't know what more to say to a colleague acting this way in response to my only two—ever—interactions with you on this ([9][10]), both of which I feel were lighthearted, straightforward, and accommodating to give you numerous options for achieving the end you so clearly desire (including just asking other admins to amend the close informally); you picked this format.

  Yet, after all of that, if you're now not willing to put in any work to propose specific alterations yourself, and no other uninvolved admin has taken my offer to amend the close (a week later), what more is there to do here? How much additional volunteer time are you requesting from others on this?

  --slakr^\ talk / 18:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is the method the community has adopted for reviewing a close that somebody has challenged, not admins informally modifying other editors' closes. Generally speaking, if someone had come to me and said "I disagree with your close and think you missed some arguments," I'd either amend the close to reflect my reasoning and address those arguments. Or, if I thought I already had addressed those arguments, I would say so. I would not not address what the other editor had said and tell them to try something else before trying to resolve the issue on my own. I've also already said what I think should be the outcome here: no consensus. It's not my job to draft a new close. That's not how close challenges work. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also not sure what I've said to offend you, but I'm sorry that I have. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts: Not offended; legitimately trying to exhaust all options for you. Let's see if I can help strictly via your desired approach. You want to go by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. It says

  You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument"

  ... and recommends you consider using this format:

  The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X never intended to apply to issues such as this

  . In contrast, your initial complaint in this close was that I wasn't exhaustive enough in describing all points of view. So let's try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE's approach instead:

  • What was the issue I was to decide? (Yes, obviously people can read the diffs, but let's try it this way).
  • Which policy/guideline(s) did I apply?
  • Which policy/guideline(s) should have been taken more into account?
  • Which policy/guideline(s) was never intended to apply to issues such as this?

  --slakr^\ talk / 21:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  That format would make sense if the dispute here was over, e.g., whether a given source should be used in an article, with some editors calling it due and others undue for inclusion. This RfC was about changing a guideline, and I think the error in this close is more fundamental than failing to properly weigh between arguments about application of a policy: as noted, I believe that your close did not adequately account for an entire side of the dispute, and thus did not adequately weigh the strength of the arguments between the two sides. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also, one of the grounds for a close review is "if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  That format would make sense if the dispute here was over, e.g., whether a given source should be used in an article, with some editors calling it due and others undue for inclusion. This RfC was about changing a guideline....

  I see. So you're not going to try following the recommended format. Not even the first one? (i.e., "What was the issue I was to decide?"). Are you unwilling to even summarize that from your perspective?

  I believe that your close did not adequately account for an entire side of the dispute, and thus did not adequately weigh the strength of the arguments between the two sides.

  I understand the concern. Feel free to suggest an adequate account of the entire side of the dispute that was missed and weigh the strength of the arguments. Post it here. If consensus agrees, then we'll update it.

  Also, one of the grounds for a close review is "if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion".

  Then what was a reasonable summation of the discussion? Again, post it here, and if people agree, then we'll update it. Just because you were involved in the discussion doesn't mean it's impossible for you to formulate a neutral close, after all.

  If you're going to criticize someone's work, then you should be willing to suggest the alternative to replace it.

  --slakr^\ talk / 00:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think my position has been stated quite clearly. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dharmasthala mass burials

• Dharmasthala mass burials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. There is a significant controversy in India right now that has gained widespread coverage. I have created an article. On the other article, I am seeing editors replacing (admittedly bad) sources with stuff like Google Docs – see this edit, for example. I have used only WP:RS Indian sources in my draft (e.g., Gulf News; The Hindu).

This article could benefit from a few administrators paying attention, as ultimately I am just one person. Thanks — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Just a note, the link you have provided is on Dharmasthala Temple, not the article in your title, which appears to be fine. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Just to check – you think we should move the article to Dharsmasthala Temple mass burials? I named it without temple because of these:

This article calls it the Dharmasthala mass burial case

The articles generally say things like the person, who claims to have buried many persons who were murdered and raped in Dharmastala,

Not opposed to it being changed (the complainant worked for the temple) but sources seem to describe it as relating to the town, and the bodies were buried along a river in the town (which I don't think is in the temple). If you want to move it though I don't have any strong feelings – I just went with what made sense. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Black Kite is talking about the article's name. I think he's pointing out that you've linked to two different articles, which I gather was your intention, but I think you may have forgotten a sentence before "On the other article", as it took me several reads to understand that what you're saying is: You've created Dharmasthala mass burials, which you think is up to snuff, but other editors are making problematic edits at Dharmasthala Temple, which could use some admin attention. Is that correct? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh I see. My bad, Tamzin – you're got the right of it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any Google Docs links in that linked diff; share.google is a new URL shortener by Google (see this reddit post for more information), and they should be replaced with the true URL, or blacklisted if abuse occurs. OutsideNormality (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I sure am collecting idiot points by the handful today. Thanks for letting me know — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Some days it do be that way - and to be fair, it looks like a "Google source". URL shorteners are a plague, both for that reason and for the fact that if you obsfucate the link you're actually going to, you have no way of knowing if the 'shortened' link is actually pointing to a bad actor until it's too late. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I should've definitely just clicked it! Something for me to bear in mind in future rather than assuming the worst! But yes share.google is a very sus abbreviation. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It's better at least than the pure-random-alphanumeric-string URLs that Google uses for Google Ads(?) on some pages! Don't be evil is long gone, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have globally blacklisted share.google, since the policy on Meta for a long time has been to blacklist URL shorteners on sight. No comment on the rest of this sprawling mess. (Edit: it looks like Beetstra beat me to the same idea). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Dharmasthala temple Dharmadhikari’s brother gets gag order to delete over 8,800 links – looks like a lot of sources on this are about to disappear. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Time to Internet Archive, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia be caught in this considering the fact that we would have info from deleted sources? 2A04:7F80:67:1C1D:C8E6:1AE:1DB5:E341 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't. It would make it harder to WP:V the information, especially if the sources aren't Internet Archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Remove Speedy Deletion tag multiple times!

Ali Tajdari was improperly moved from AfD to main-space without proper review or acceptance. See Special:Diff/1301387057. The IMDb is fake. Non of the films are real and he doesn't act in any of that! You can't find even a single sequence on any platforms. Please delete this article and protect to create. 1.47.136.205 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@1.47.136.205: You might have a point that the article shouldn't exist. But, you cannot repeatedly tag an article with G11 when it has been declined. C.Fred already declined speedy deletion under G11 for the reasons in their edit summary, so I have just re-removed the tag to enforce that.

For everyone else, there does seem to be potential problems here, including the edit that moved this back to the mainspace and comments left on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there potential problems with the article? Yes, potentially. However, that would require reviewing the sources to see if they support the claims in the article. In the immediate term, the article is not so severely promotional to warrant deletion under CSD G11.

That said, looking at the allegations on the talk page, I don't see where any of the nominations have been made in bad faith, nor am I inclined to (yet) ascribe bad faith to any of the pro-article editors on the page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

My issue with the talk page comments was that the one user accusing others of bad faith editing. (On a separate note, Cactusisme is getting asked to resolve this.) Edit: Ah, they made an edit where they drafted the article a second time. That is why they are being asked now. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC) (Amended on 03:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC))

I will wait for an admin to resolve. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 01:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I haven't made it to the entertainment side of the biography, but in the sport side, a lot of the dates have been wrong. However, this also involves translation from Iranian SH dates, so I'm giving the editors some grace that it was an honest mistake. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  @C.Fred @Super Goku V there are no any RS. The article clearly not meet GNG, NMMA and NACTOR. Any of Persian language Wikipedians can confirm it. 1.47.136.205 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then a registered, logged-in individual can nominate the article for deletion. See WP:AFDHOWTO. Speedy deletion is only for obvious issues that don’t need any discussion. This does. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  From what I can fine, there are two reliable sources in English regarding the person, but I would say that things are very shakey even with them. At the same time, I have a concern that myself nominating the article for deletion would fall afoul of something like TAGTEAM now due to getting involved with this. Resolved by Fram. (But the article also can't stay like it is, so I guess I will try to do a pass on cleaning up the issues that I believe I might be able to resolve.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC) (Amended on 19:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)')

Request to create page List of Minecraft servers

This is a request to create a redirect at List of Minecraft servers to redirect to Minecraft server#List. It is currently blocked because of the rule ".*minecraft (?:server|download).*". Tarna652 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Created. That said, I'm skeptical the target section is a good idea; it seems too much against WP:NOTDIR for my taste. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it because not everything in that list has its own article yet. What do you think would be a better? Tarna652 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

According to the section, it is designed to just be notable servers and half of the list appears to have individual articles. It also looks like there have been attempts on the talk page to keep the list notable only. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I have made certain edits to that article consistent with WP:CSC. It is unlikely that this list will be removed as it suffices to improve it by removing the bad entries, as I have done, and in this compliant version it is relevant in the article. As a result, the "List of Minecraft servers" redirect should be taken to be a normal redirect. —Alalch E. 01:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

requesting an uninvolved admin close a talk page discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Talk:2024 United States presidential election there is a discussion titled "Trump's infobox picture" that would benefit from a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to create protected article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request to create protected article "Ayaz Sheikh"

Respected admins, I would like to request the creation of the page Ayaz Sheikh or Ayaz Sheikh (Pakistani artist), which is currently blacklisted due to previous multiple failed attempts.

I have a properly written, neutral, and sourced draft ready. The subject is a verified Pakistani singer and OST artist featured in Dunya News, The News International, HUM TV, and has a Wikipedia Urdu page as well.

Please guide or assist in creation. Thank you 39.34.132.61 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Create an account and create the article in your sandbox. If it gets accepted by the AfC reviewers, they would move the draft to the right place. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, have you tried to create this article before under a different account? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note that the IP editor posted their draft article on AN below this request. I have removed it as not appropriate for this board. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  @39.34.132.61 The sources you provided are all PR pieces (some of them being blatant AI slop) and do not confer notability. If you try to create this article through the AfC process, it would likely be declined. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting close of an ARBPIA merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Proposed merge is now the oldest open merge proposal at over nine months, and there have been no new comments in a month. Note that some of the participants have since been topic banned or indefinitely blocked as a result of WP:ARBPIA5. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note that some of the participants have since been topic banned or indefinitely blocked as a result of WP:ARBPIA5. - this shouldn't matter, if they commented before their ban/block, their comment should still count now. Unless these were sockpuppet accounts, then it would matter. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've closed the discussion. Sandstein 17:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for article creation ban removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I would like to propose my article creation ban to be removed. It's been over 6 months, and I've learned my lesson. I will no longer create poorly sourced new articles. Hopefully you can forgive me for my bad behavior. I am truly sorry for what I've done. I will never continue this mistake. Best regards. --Pek (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

We can certainly forgive, but you are going to need to do better than this statement- you need to show us that you understand the issues that led to the ban and will not repeat them. This should include some examples of properly sourced edits that you have made. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pek, can you provide examples of poorly sourced articles which you've improved with better sources? If so, please provide diffs. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the issue, the sources I used were either blogs, or some other poor quality sources, when I had no better alternatives. I will not repeat them. If I won't find good sources for an article, I will simply not make that article. Here are some examples of my properly sourced edits: League of Legends, Lebanon, Bougainville Island, Internet in Finland, Ecosia, AVG Technologies, Huawei and Breast implant illness. Best regards. --Pek (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

To provide history for other commenters, you agreed to a voluntary six month ban from creating new articles in August 2023 as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#User:Pek repeatedly creating poor quality stubs, where you were essentially told it was either that or a CBAN. After that voluntary ban expired, you were indefinitely banned in November 2024 as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry, because you immediately returned to the problematic behavior.

As I noted at the second discussion: I would strongly oppose any time-limited ban, given Pek's previous history of simply waiting out the duration of the ban and then returning to creating articles with no change in behavior. Unfortunately, I think that is what we are dealing with here. You’ve made about 50 articlespace edits in the eight months since your ban was imposed. At one point you asked for "special permission" to create an article on a web browser despite your ban, proposing three sources of the same poor quality as you've used in the past to create problematic articles: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201#Special permission to create an article.

My suggestion: spend a good period of time making substantial, high-quality edits to existing articles. If that goes well, perhaps we could consider a trial in which you would be permitted to work on a single new article at a time in draftspace. But at this point in time, I would oppose any changes to the ban. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

oppose Agree with Gorilla here. Show me a longer history, than 50 mainspace edits, without incident. I wasn't particularly impressed with the edit at Special:Diff/1281884062 where Pek added content and at the same time added a citation needed tag for the content that they added. TarnishedPath^talk 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that removing the ban would end well. But if we were going to do this, I'd suggest a trial period (e.g., a maximum of one article per month for the next year) and special requirements along these lines:

• that all articles be created in a User: sandbox and remain there until approved (any admin? NPP? AFC?),
• that all articles exceed the median in length (>350 words, as measured by the prosesize gadget), and
• that all articles exceed the median number of cited sources (>4 sources).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

To make this idea more specific, in line with restrictions like Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#FloridaArmy:

• Pek is prohibited from creating new articles in mainspace. Any new articles must first go through the Articles for Creation process.
• Topic ban: The community restricts Pek to no more than 1 pending Articles for Creation submissions at any time. Their existing restriction on mainspace article creation is still in effect.
• Any article creation must be at least 300 words in length and must be fully cited to at least three reliable sources. (Commentary: Numbers here may be adjusted)

I'm inclined to give some WP:ROPE here. The AfC process is good at preventing low-quality articles from entering mainspace, so the potential for harm is minimal. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of a political party with ballot access by partisan users

We The People Party has ballot access in several states. When I tried to make a basic entry - they get undone for political reasons. Neutrality is key to Wikipedia. Is there a way to address this. Thanks! StabbyStaby (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

You should discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Please assume good faith and do not assign motivations to editors unless you have direct evidence. US politics is a formally designated contentious topic, please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

In this specific case the editor is making unsourced additions at We the People Party that have been reverted for lacking citations. The solution to their problem is simple: use reliable citations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

As you can see in previous edits many links and sources are mentioned. They were removed multiple times. This is creating an impossible standard. When links are added to official pages with legal ballot access - they are called spam by random users, who then request a softblock. When they are not included and only internal links are used it is said they are not properly sourced.

Can nobody take 1 min and just make sure this is done correctly please? Or make specific suggestions of where sourcing is needed. I have no problem helping. The main site I included in the info box has ballot map for multiple states with official links to the state party websites. What else is needed?

Much smaller parties half or a 7th the size are on Wikipedia with very similar sourcing. There are hundreds of articles, videos, official Secretary of State websites. What else can be needed? StabbyStaby (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So this is a bit of a mistake on your part because the party does, in fact, have a page. What you're being told is that to make the changes you want to make to the page, those changes, in specific, require citations, preferably from independent secondary sources. So the answer to the question of what needs citations is clear: the edits of yours which were reverted require citations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The page is very old. It's clearly written incorrectly. None of the basic concepts of the party, beliefs, systems or leadership are mentioned. It needs updated. Anyone who reads this will be misinformed.

Except for an only RFK reference who cant even legally interact with the party due to the Hatch Act which I cited.

There is a page true, but no listing under minor political parties. Which multi-state ballot access more than qualifies for.

I will say you guys are ontop of it as far as responding! StabbyStaby (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. However I figured you would check the page and see the most recent UNDO was publicly stated partisan reasons "Another SPA trying to pretend that a web page blogging Jr.'s Make Amercia Crazy Again is an encyclopedia-worthy political party."

The same comment was made on the listing of America Minor parties.

Here is that entry: 14:02, 25 July 2025 M.boli talk contribs 100,966 bytes −1,605 Undid revision 1302448925 by StabbyStaby (talk) Rv wishful thinking by an SPA pretending a Make America Crazy Again blog is a notable political party.

Are these edits to be should expected on wikipedia? They show heavy bias. StabbyStaby (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @StabbyStaby, I did the last revert [11] as unreferenced. I then left you a Welcome message that incorporates the need for referencing. Knitsey (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message but I don't get why you guys keep saying verifiability policy violated, or no sources or whatever. It's very easy just google the name, check any of the links, its literally registered with the government all over the country with hundreds of thousands of signatures.

What does it take to be verified? Nobody can find a sentence that needs referenced. Your acting like something that is in voter pamphlets and on hundreds of thousands of ballots is a fantasy. I will reference anything you need sourced. But I can't do that if nobody will point out what needs sourced.

Does nobody update the list of minor parties? It's been over a year. StabbyStaby (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask you to read WP:BURDEN...The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Knitsey (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) StabbyStaby (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to Starlordy1 (talk · contribs), who is under a username softblock from when their account was named "Wtpnational". Users softblocked in this situation are normally permitted to make a new account conforming with the username policy, but they're not allowed to then continue editing topics where they have an undisclosed conflict of interest. They probably should be part-blocked or topic-banned, but I'm going to leave this for more comments. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That was not a great case for a soft block, and pretty much played out predictably.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Name the part that needs sourcing, there's a ton of sources on this party. It's a real thing, if someone else would bother to update it based on what is new over the past year that would be great. StabbyStaby (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Every part that has been challenged, and any of your edits that has reverted as unsourced has been challenged, must have a citation to a reliable source. If you are aware of reliable sources that support the content you are trying to add, then include citations with your edits. Otherwise, do not try to re-add content that has been reverted as unsourced. Donald Albury 18:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Edited 18:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Not just that, but you must disclose if you are affiliated with this organization in any way. Please see paid contribution disclosure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will try and source it again. It's word for word off the websites of multiple state parties as it is which is registered with the Secretary of State. So gov sources usually are accepted.

But I've noticed many have overlooked clearly partisan edits. So the sourcing wont fix it if someone doesn't like MAHA or RFK (even though WTP is its own entity completely) and deletes it solely for that reason as I mentioned and showed evidence of above has already happened 2 times explicitly. StabbyStaby (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It's word for word off the websites of multiple state parties This is close paraphrasing or outright copyright violation. Also note that websites of multiple state parties are very likely primary sources which can only be used for simple factual statements and do not serve to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Another problem I'm seeing here is promotional tone. If I can look at the edit and get the impression that you support this party or its ideas, then your edit probably doesn't comply with the requirement that articles are impartial. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• StabbyStaby ignored my warning about paid contribution disclosure above and has continued editing the article inappropriately, so I have left a disclosure requirement warning on their talk page. If they continue to ignore, they should be (re-)blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Some background for this discussion. I'm an editor who did much of the work on the We the People Party (United States) article during the past year.

Last year there was news coverage of the various state parties which were created to get RFK Jr.'s name on the presidential ballots in individual states. There were also assorted candidates using the same party name (but not party organizations) at various times.

What there wasn't was a national party organization with that name. The new editor is trying to revamp this article to focus on a putative national WTP party. (And sometimes those edits removed the references to the other uses of that party name.)

Regarding the recent edits describing a WTP party:

• I think a few days before the Nov election (oddly) somebody registered a We the People Party organization with the Federal Election Commission. (It was hard to ferret out because of the large number of other entities sharing the same name, including PACs and state parties and other WTPs unrelated to the RFK Jr effort.)
• It has reported zero income and zero expenditures to the FEC, despite several quarterly report deadlines having past. It doesn't appear on the FEC list of parties for searching.
• This entity has received, as near as I can determine, zero coverage in anything resembling a legitimate news outlet.

So absent any news coverage and barely any FEC existence, my attempt to figure out for myself whether the recent edits may potentially have any encyclopedia-worthy reality concluded they don't.

The domain wtpnational.com, registered in January of this year, is a web page that contains a lot of blather about a wonderful political party along with a blog roll of "MAHA" news. This is the one-and-only source, it is primary, and unless and until it receives some news coverage I'm inclined to still believe it is aspirational and not encyclopedia-worthy.

The SPA keeps yapping I am "partisan". I agree my edit summaries were somewhat acid. I wrote those after multiple additions and reversions had occurred. But if I have any partisanship, it is to Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Unblocks backlog

Hi folks, the backlog at CAT:RFU is now at over 115 people waiting for response from an administrator (and another 30+ waiting for a response from the blocked editor). Any help much appreciated. If you've previously been annoyed by the fact that you have to respond to these by hand, I can report that User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UnblockReview.js now works most of the time. (You still have to do the actual unblocking by hand.)

While I'm here: can I make a desperate plea to stop no-warning softblocking people for username violations? Please, please, give them a warning so they can attempt a rename under their own power. I know the softblock message says "go ahead and make a new account". Many don't - they request unblock instead, and then get stuck in this backlog for no good reason, sometimes for weeks. Please give them a chance to fix the problem without adding an extra layer of delay and admin busywork. Or at least let them make some dumb promo edits first so you can hardblock and we can read them the riot act. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to knock out a few more today. You've been doing the heavy lifting recently, so thanks for that. It definitely hasn't gone unnoticed! Also, username soft blocks should be used when User:CocaColaCo is productively editing articles such as Golden retriever and Hibiscus and aren't responding to a request to change their name, not when a user named after their company or group is attempting to write content or influence articles on said company or group. Soft blocking in such cases just pushes the problem to another account and obfuscates the extent of the disruption. In my opinion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks as ever, Ponyo. And yes, precisely. The ones that are really driving me crazy are the softblocks for people who haven't edited at all, or only made one or two edits. Their first edits are unblock requests! Waste of everyone's time and not a great newbie experience either. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Due to all the criticism the unblock review team has received, I've shied off. Lot's of frustrating effort, and life's to short. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It has long been my belief that blocking an account for a promotional username (even if it is a soft block) when the account hasn't edited at all is a violation of the text of the WP:PROMONAME policy, which requires a user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors in order to give a block. Mz7 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

IMO, WP:CORPNAME with no edits = warn/discuss. WP:CORPNAME with non promotional edits = warn/discuss or SOFTERBLOCK. WP:CORPNAME with promotional edits = SPAMUBLOCK. Some make SOFTERBLOCKS despite COI/promotional edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to see people in that second category blocked only if they keep editing long past a warning, or even long past two warnings. Someone who isn't making overly promo edits is probably actually trying to do things correctly, so a warning has a hope of working out productively with minimal fuss. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alexf: are you aware of this conversation? Most of the softblocks I see are made by you. It's causing a bit of a logjam at WP:RFU.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I was not aware of this thread until now. Will review and be more careful (i.e. let soft-block material ride longer and see what they do. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I will try to get some of these done tonight/tomorrow if I can. Also, some of those username blocks might be my fault - Sorry! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

If each admin did one each month, what wonders we would achieve. I did a SOFTERBLOCK. Those are easy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Knocked out a couple. I'll try to keep an eye out on the queue on my more active editing days. Star Mississippi 14:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to process a few here and there. I keep getting sucked into checkuser rabbit holes though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Kantamanto Market

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kantamanto Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It might be a good idea for an admin or some other experienced users to take a look at Kantamanto Market since it has been edited by several newly created accounts over the past few days. One of these accounts asked about removing "misinformation" on my user talk page, and another then subsequently removed cited content claiming it was "misinformation". I've got no idea whether that's true, but this is a minor article and the accounts seem to have created just for the purpose of editing it. So, I figures more eyes on it might be a good thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,

Instead of just pointing us to an article, could you supply some diffs so we know what you are concerned with? You might get a faster response. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I should note that there's a related editathon/workshop. These accounts are mostly listed at the bottom of my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

[12] according to the edit summary, is an account removing information. They change sources and info regarding a fire there. 2001:8003:B15F:8000:1CA8:4555:D1E6:34A (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly, And to add to the reply I was facilitator leading the editathon that made those changes to the various articles including the Kantamanto Market. All the changes were made in good faith and every editor was taken through the Wikipedia editing rules. Unless you are claiming the changed texts are not misinformation can you provide an alternative. Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, Zzuuzz, and Owula kpakpo: I was away for a few days so I apologize for the lateness of my reply. The edit that caught my attention was the one mentioned by the IP above; my apologies for not including a diff for it in my OP. The fact that the article is being edited as part of an editathon according zzuuzz kind of explains all the new accounts. The combination of the post on my user page asking about "misinformation" and then the edit made to the article removing "misinformation", just made me feel someone else perhaps should take a look at things. Since Owula kpakpo seems familiar with the subject matter and also is helping with the editathon, I have no problem deferring to their judgement on the this; however, the content that was removed as "misinformation" was supported by citations to three sources: 1 (archived version), 2, and 3. Is the misinformation because the Wikipedia content didn't use those sources in proper context or because the sources themselves are incorrect or otherwise not reliable? The first sentence "The Or Foundation found that a fire was deliberately set by real estate development firm set fire to part of the market in December 2020." is probably the most contentious claim, but it is what souce #1 says. The other two sources also seem to support the content they are being used as citations for. So, what is exactly the "misinformation" user who removed the content is referring to? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this at Talk:Kantamanto Market#Misinormation since it mainly now seems to be a content dispute not really requiring administrator intervention per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Revision Deletion – Accidental IP disclosure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I’m requesting a revision deletion to remove my IP address from the page history of a talk page edit I made while accidentally logged out.

Details:

- **Page**: User talk:FieldArchivist - **Revision**: 17:20, 27 July 2025 - **Reason**: I accidentally posted a comment while logged out. This was my own contribution, and I have since reposted it under my username at 17:31. I’m requesting redaction of the earlier revision to protect my privacy.

Thank you for your help. FieldArchivist (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Revdelled. For future reference, please see the edit notice and don't post revdel requests on a high-visibility public page like this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query on CTOP

Is there a master list somewhere of specific subject areas covered by CTOP where extended confirmed editing restrictions are mandatory as opposed to subject to admin discretion? This has become a periodic source of confusion at RfPP, and I have to confess that sometimes the language in the relevant pages is not always exactly clear. My understanding based on "The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:..." is that unless explicitly stated elsewhere, that editing restrictions for pages covered by CTOP are at the discretion of the reviewing admin. However, I do note that there are topics such as Indian military history, where specific language seems to indicate that ECP is obligatory. Some editors requesting page protection have been taking highly expansive views of what is covered by CTOP while insisting that all covered pages must be extended confirmed protected. Thanks in advance for any clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

All editing restrictions that apply to all editors – that is, general sanctions – should be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Active sanctions. However, the individual general sanction pages for each area designated by the arbitration committee as a contentious topic, or as authorized by the community for discretionary sanctions has lists of editing restrictions imposed under those frameworks by individual admins. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure about CTOPs in toto, but looking at WP:GS, it looks like WP:APL, WP:CT/A-I, WP:GS/RUSUKR, and WP:GS/KURD are under mandatory extended confirmed restrictions overall, while the WP:GS/A-A subset of 'Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts', and the new WP:CT/SA subset of 'Indian military history' are also explicitly ECR mandated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl, The Bushranger Thank you for the clarification. I think that should resolve one ongoing disagreement and help prevent future ones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Plus the WP:CT/SA subset of WP:GSCASTE. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Uğur_Şahin#RfC_about_Turkish_ethnicity_in_first_sentence

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

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

User requesting review: Bogazicili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [13]

Reasoning: The current first sentence in the lead is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Sources describe Uğur Şahin as Turkish or Turkish German or in a variety of ways (see the sources in the RfC and in Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Long-term_edit_war_in_the_article). Ignoring these sources, and just saying Uğur Şahin is a German oncologist ... is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. Personal interpretations of MOS:CONTEXTBIO cannot be used to circumvent or supersede WP:NPOV.

I actually do not necessarily contest the no consensus closure. But the last paragraph in RfC closure should be struck down or modified. There was never an RfC about using "German" in the first sentence. The relevant policy here is WP:ONUS, not WP:BRD. In short, we should be able to remove German in the first sentence until there is an RfC about it.

I discussed above with Fieari back in March. However, the editor has not edited since then. That's why the RfC challenge is delayed. Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Uğur Şahin)

• I'm confused why this is here. First, there's little point in challenging a four-month-old discussion; just start a new one if issues haven't been resolved. Second, your apparent grievance is with the fact that "German" remains in the first sentence, but the paragraph you complain about specifically says that editors can do whatever they want about that, so AFAICT nothing is stopping you from changing that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't want to make a new RfC unnecessarily.

  I am asking opinions for the last paragraph in RfC closure, about WP:BRD, specifically this part:

  One compromise option was briefly brought up-- "German" could be removed from the lead as well, leaving the ethnicity question until later when it can be discussed in more nuance. This RfC does not establish consensus either for or against this option, meaning usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply.

  I think this is incorrect. WP:ONUS should apply here, and we should be able to remove "German" in the first sentence, until consensus is established for adding "German" (and only "German"). I'm interpreting "usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply" as "German" should not be removed.

  I also think my "apparent grievance" is very valid. If you look at BioNTech's website, Uğur Şahin's nationality is listed as "Turkish" [14] (web archive pdf link for Uğur Şahin's resume). This in addition to multiple reliable sources about Uğur Şahin's Turkish nationality.

  Therefore, saying Uğur Şahin is a German oncologist, immunologist, entrepreneur, and billionaire businessman. in wikivoice is a giant violation of NPOV.

  Based on your response, can you confirm that WP:ONUS should apply here and "German" in the first sentence can be removed? Bogazicili (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I hate to assume a definitive stance on WP:ONUS because it contradicts WP:NOCON, also a policy. In any case, it doesn't look like anyone ever attempted to remove "German" from the first sentence. Why don't we start there? If nobody reverts it, none of this discussion will be necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've started there since I think if there's a dispute, just leaving nationality out is always at least worth considering. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Zionism/Archive 35#Moratorium proposal and Talk:Zionism/Archive 33#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Zionism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question)

Discussion with closer: {{User talk:Chetsford#c-Chetsford-20250727170000-Zionism RFC appeal}}

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for both

User requesting review: Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [15]

Reasoning: The lede says that Zionists wanted “as few Arabs as possible”, which is not supported by the sources provided by DancingOwl and other editors who participated in the discussion. The RFC was almost entirely dominated by users subsequently topic banned for behavioral violations (including one editor specifically cited for “selectively boost[ing] sources that agree with their position”). A new RFC should be conducted now that sufficient time has passed for those intimidated away by said users have had safe enough time to resume activity in the topic space. Chetsford has agreed that a substantive review and prudent evaluation of arguments being made by editors should take place, guided by an admin with expertise in the topic area; Chetsford has mentioned having a lack of expertise in the topic area. Since battleground editors crowded the conversation (including two now banned editors), the closing was in contravention of established protocol recently reaffirmed by the Arbitration Committee pertaining to “evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases” (especially when there is a suspicion of off-site coordination, sockpuppetry, & meatpuppetry).

1. Per WP:MORATORIUM, “moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia”. A twelve month moratorium imposed to a highly contentious article within an even more contentious topic space is not only a troubling silencing of discourse and debate, it effectively sides wikipedia with one side of the conflict when there were an abundance of substantive counter-arguments stated in the debate that were drowned out and effectively reduced to a WP:HEADCOUNT against general policy (another trouble item cited in PIA5 proceedings). It should also be pointed out that a 12-month moratorium on this discussion lasts almost the exact amount of time until the banned editors may file first appeal, potentially placing the entire conversation in stasis until sanctioned individuals may potentially resume participation.

2. None of the sources directly (or with evidence) support the statement “wanted a land with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible”. The statement is pure WP:SYNTH and likewise is not in wikivoice. This was procedurally reviewed citation by citation by DancingOwl during the RFP [16]and subsequently ignored without rebuttal. The statement does not specify which “zionists” are being referred to, and derives “want” from pure conjecture and post-conflict analysis by mostly partisan sources. The sentence does not reflect the diversity of scholarly voices presented and it is WP:CHERRYPICK to allow it in the lede. The drive by certain editors to cement this sentence in the lede may reasonably be construed as WP:ADVOCACY.

3. Canvassing and WP Ownership: The aggressive and dominant behavior of the highest contributing editors to this discussion is well established. Most of the participants have been ‘owning’ this article, for a number of months, coinciding with a number of now-exposed off-wiki canvassing operations.

4. WP HEADCOUNT: This complex and deluged discussion should never have been reduced down to a head count, when the section is imbalanced and flooded by one-sided editors. In this case, it cannot come down to numbers, but quality of argument. Again - simply - none of the quotes affirm the clearly stated desires and goals of Zionist leadership, but instead are selected examples from scholarly opinion. A review, citation by citation, of the sources, does not support the sentence as written, plain and simple.

The area needs a new set of editors; the toxicity and incivility in the area has put off neutral editors. As I proposed in the RFC, a Rollback to mid-2023 (to the lede’s last healthy stable draft) may be the best solution to mitigate the impact of all above stated factors so revived editors may re-approach this topic free from the burdens that plagued the previous effort. Also, active care and attention by admins must be taken to avoid domination by battleground editors. This is a joint close challenge of the RFC and moratorium. I am requesting a vacating of the moratorium and re-run of the RFC post-PIA5. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC) }}

Closer (User:Chetsford)

→ Due to the length of text involving multiple, archived sections, I'm (with two exceptions) providing direct links for ease of reading in lieu of diffs. I aver that each link is an unaltered and accurate representation of comments made as of this datestamp.

On 4 January 2025 I closed an RfC on the initial question. I opened that closing statement by saying "A pulse check done by means of headcounting ,,," before entering into a qualitative evaluation of the RfC per WP:DETCON. As I later explained to the appellant, the invocation of the word "headcounting" was not meant to infer that the decision was based on a headcount (it wasn't) merely that I did make an observation of the quantitative disposition of opinions before closing the RfC based on a qualitative evaluation (as I also explained in the 718-words closing statement). The conclusion was that there was "consensus that the sentence referenced in the OP is compliant with NPOV and should remain in the lead and the body" but that "CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and any decision the community has arrived at here is not etched in stone and may be revisited or adjusted in the future if there's a consensus to do so".

In any case, regardless of my superintendence, the community decided to go ahead and etch it into stone. On 21 February, I closed a second RfC [17] that imposed a one-year moratorium on further discussion of the contentious sentence in the lead. In this case, the consensus was so overwhelming in favor of the moratorium that I didn't even feel the need to engage in a detailed recitation of the arguments (something that, in retrospect, I probably should have done but wouldn't have changed the outcome in any case).

I received the following responses to this on my Talk page:

1. On 23 February, editor 81.108.173.4 requested I "go to hell" followed by a phrase I didn't entirely understand. I liberally construed hell to be a reference to the Arbitration Committee and advised they would need to file a case directly with it (it was my feeling I could not initiate a self-report under WP:ADMINACCT).

2. On 2 March, editor @Toomuchcuriosity: requested a numerical breakdown of opinions in the moratorium RfC.

3. On 20 March, editor Allthemilescombined1 filed a request for reconsideration of sorts; specifically, that (a) "the area needs a new set of editors" and that, (b) I modify the length of the moratorium from one-year to a a 30-60 day 'cool down period' as topic-banned editors, they alleged, had participated in the discussion. On the first point, I explained that RfC closers do not have the authority to conscript editors from other areas of Wikipedia and I could not, therefore, provide the "new set of editors" they wanted me to provide. On the second point, without declining the request for reconsideration, I asked for additional information as to the identities of the topic banned editors, to which Allthemilescombined1 replied "Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I need to think carefully before naming editors, as I found out once before." I next heard from Allthemilescombined1 on...

4. 2 April when they clarified that no topic banned editors participated in the RfC, but that editors who participated in the RfC were subsequently topic-banned (after the RfC closed) and the RfC should be re-adjudicated on this basis. They also seemed to make a request that I invest myself with extraordinary authority given the "special amount of attention" this subject purportedly carried with it, and that I then issue a variety of emergency orders such as a mandate only subject-matter experts close RfCs related to this topic, and so forth. The powers they requested I assume are too long to completely recite, but my response was that:

"In summary, you are asking me to do things I have neither the power nor authority to do. No one has granted me the authority to simply decree a 30-day "cooling down period" because I think it's preferable to what the community decided; to unilaterally modify our policies and guidelines to make topic bans retroactive; to require only subject-matter experts close RfCs, etc. If you would like me to be granted these special powers, you will need to make that request of the WP:WMF's board of trustees."

At this time I advised they might be better served by filing a CLOSECHALLENGE.

5. On 20 July, Allthemilescombined1 filed a further request for reconsideration which, as I interpreted it, was again based on their view that the RfC should be reopened and then reclosed to account for !votes of editors who were not topic banned at the time the RfC was closed but were subsequently. I declined this request for reconsideration as I felt that topic bans take effect at the place and moment of the ban and are not retroactive through time and space. I again suggested they could file a CLOSECHALLENGE.

At various points in this discussion, I did indicate my personal opinion that the one-year moratorium was excessive and ill-advised. To be clear, this was my opinion as an editor and, while I continue to maintain that opinion, it is also clear to me the consensus was overwhelming in favor of such a moratorium and any contrary close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE.

One final item: "Chetsford has agreed that a substantive review and prudent evaluation of arguments being made by editors should take place, guided by an admin with expertise in the topic area" This seems to be an ... innocent misinterpretation ... of this exchange of 8 April 2025 [18]:

Allthemilescombined1:"Generally speaking, do you believe that people closing proceedings in contentious topics should be experts, or at least have some expertise on the nuances of the subjects they are adjudicating on?"

Chetsford: "I have no opinion on this question one way or the other."

Chetsford (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Zionism)

• Endorse close The close accurately and fairly summarised the discussion and the close has more than adequately been explained by the closer after the fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close of the initial RfC, overturn close of the moratorium discussion as a bad RfC. Local consensus of WP:MORATORIUM cannot overrule the policy at WP:CCC. If specific editors are engaging in a way that is disruptive, that can be addressed as a conduct issue, which is exactly what's happening below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  12 months is very long, are there seriously no avenues for someone to challenge a moratorium? Other than another RfC I guess? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701 consensus landing on a 12 months moratorium was a response to the level of disruption. After there being discussion on the sentence for a very very long time, there was an RFC in which the overwelming consensus was that the sentence was policy compliant and that it should stay. The RFC had barely even closed and there was a number of editors trying to relitigate it in a new discussion. Editors had enough and there had to be some sort of break.

  On your question of what avenues there are to challenge it, you can read what Chetsford wrote at Talk:Zionism/Archive 35#Moratorium proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 22:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. There was a cheeky rough consensus to move it to the second paragraph here, it appears most people’s objection to it is its prominence, being in the first paragraph? While we all agreed that change would violate the moratorium, that doesn’t appear to something the close addressed. Remove/replace is obv off the cards, and personally I don’t see that changing even after the moratorium ends Kowal2701 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  it appears most people’s objection to it is its prominence, being in the first paragraph?

  In the RFC, editors against it wanted it removed altogether. The RFC question was:

  Does this sentence violate NPOV and should it be removed from the lead and the body?

  "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible"

  Of those voting that it was policy compliant and that it should stay, I didn't see any of them state that they had a problem with it being in the first para. Therefore I would imply that consensus was that it stay not only in the lead but in the first para.
  

  Regarding you comment about a cheeky consensus. I think not. TarnishedPath^talk 22:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes WP:CCC, however that does not mean that we must entertain endless relitigation of what was overwhelming consensus. In their close of the moratorium discussion Chetsford outlined clearly what situation they thought would allow the moratorium to be terminated early. TarnishedPath^talk 22:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Zionism)

• Endorse close - Consensus in the RFC was clear that the sentence did not violate WP:NPOV and that it should stay. Even if we disregard to votes of those who were topic banned (2 who !voted that the sentence should go and 4 who !voted that it should stay), which WP:GRAVEDANCING provides guidance that we shouldn't, consensus was clear. TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close. This will be a bit long because the rationales given for overturning are so scattershot. Answering each off them:

• The consensus in the RFC was clear, and strong sourcing was provided to support it; see eg. [19][20][21]. The current statement in the article cites 17 sources. The argument that it is not supported by the sources provided by DancingOwl (someone who opposed the current wording) is silly - obviously if you only look at sources provided by one side in a dispute you can get whatever outcome you want; but the discussion as a whole focused on sources, already in the article, that a consensus of editors determined support the text in question. The simple fact that a minority disagreed with that reading of the sources doesn't make the closure invalid; no one is obliged to satisfy you.
• OP also argues that DancingOwl's statement here was not rebutted, which is plainly wrong; simply scrolling down shows numerous people disputing it using detailed source analysis and policy-based reasoning. The claim it was not rebutted makes sense only from the perspective of "well I don't agree with the responses, so they failed to successfully rebut it", which is an argument that would allow anyone to close or overturn any discussion in any way they please. People who feel strongly about a topic are rarely convinced by the arguments for the other side; that's why RFCs need to be closed by uninvolved editors.
• The fact that many contributors to the discussion were later topic-banned does not affect the consensus; and in any case it is true for editors on both sides of the dispute.
• A moratorium was not imposed lightly; it was only done after months of circular discussion that constantly got reset because new users were being poured into the article by outside coverage. The constant attempts to re-litigate this issue (including this one), coupled with extensive and constant outside efforts to direct editors to the article, show why a WP:MORATORIUM is necessary - we cannot have an article's talk page consumed forever by a dispute over a single sentence; we do need a way to settle disputes, make people who disagree with a consensus WP:DROPTHESTICK, and move on. I have said in the past (and still believe) that no moratorium is truly binding, since a clear consensus can always overturn it; but you need a solid reason to do so (usually some new real-world event). "Several people in the topic area on both sides of the discussion were topic-banned" coupled with "we're right tho" are not solid arguments.

It's a huge article on a massively complex topic. Focus on some other aspect of it. Any other aspect of it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closes. OP is trying to relitigate two extensive RfCs that were properly closed. No good reasons are provided. In fact OP misrepresents the facts by falsely claiming that there were no sources supporting the disputed text in the first RfC. Search for the lists compiled by Levivic for many examples. This request has no redeeming features and should be considered disruptive. I also invite admins to scan OP's contribs for any sign of balance in editing, and good luck because I couldn't find any. Zero^talk 12:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Zionism)

• The RfC being demanded to be overturned here was closed in January. The moritorium was closed in February. It's now nearly the end of July. I don't think we have a statute of limitations but this still strikes me, even before getting into any of the details, as rather...excessive a span of time to demand a do-over, especially given that from the time the RfC was closed to now is getting close to the amount of time from now until the moritorium they're up in arms about expires. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Zionism article in general has been seeing a disproportionate amount of demands for edits (against the RfC consensus) and unprotections at WP:RFPP as of late. A part of me thinks that there's an off-wiki campaign involved as most of the requests are coming from IPs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Even the closing admin said my points were valid, yet we have numerous editors who arrived within minutes to hours demanding I be topic banned. I'm not sure how they knew to arrive here so quickly. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  It will be in part due to you posting the request to review the closure across multiple venues of Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Cdjp1 Could you clarify what venues you are referring to - the closer's talk page and this noticeboard? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  And the main article in question. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  in what way? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Do I really need to spell it out for you? It seems like either a competency issue or being purposefully obtuse. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  I wonder how multiple editors, who are active in this topic area, and active on the article this effects, found this thread, when you posted about seeking 'outside' perspective on it on that article's talkpage? [Sarcasm] See here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  When I posted on the article's talk page, I had not decided whether to take it to AN. After I decided to take it to AN, I did not announce that anywhere but the closer's talk page. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are not helping counter the question of your competency. I suggested the same to the closer here. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC) -> There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC). People are in fact capable of clicking links between different pages. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, are you asking why posting about something in multiple places made it so that more people noticed the posts than if you had only posted about it in one place? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am wondering how so many editors noticed so quickly that I made this request to AN. I only pinged the closer. How did I put the request on the main article? I don't recall doing so. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, you also posted about it on two admin noticeboards. Lots of people watch noticeboards, so when you say things on them, people see alerts. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  On which other noticeboard did I post about this close challenge? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Click on the link up at the top of the page that says "User Contributions". MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Choosing to make vague insinuations of a coordinated campaign against you instead of addressing any of the points raised is not going to help your case. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  That is not exactly what the closing admin said, as they pointed out when correcting your claims in their statement above. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Since the spikes tend to coincide with mentions on Twitter, I went and had a look. It seems some account called Global Update tweeted about Zionism being defined by Wikipedia as the "colonization of Palestin" on 9 July. This saw a bunch of others tweet about it, all with not insignificant engagement. There was then a large boost due to a tweet by the American Jewish Congress about it on 11 July, and since then constant tweets about it from various accounts critcising the article, all with thousands of engagements. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  That at least confirms there's an (albeit ad hoc) external campaign going on, which has been an issue in the area for ages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Allthemilescombined1 be infinitely TBAN'd from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This is WP:GRAVEDANCING and I have already warned the editor about it at Special:Diff/1302532562 in relation to their prior conduct at Special:Diff/1301619045. This is disruptive behaviour in a CTOP area where we need less disruption, not more. Note: the editor has previously been advised of CTOP at Special:Permalink/1251530895#Introduction to contentious topics. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support as well. They are a border line WP:SPU engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In addition to the WP:GRAVEDANCING above, they have recently:
  • Lodged a frivolous complaint against another user for hounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_about_following_me_around_per_WP:HOUND. They have yet to show that any of the edits made by this user were disruptive and are demonstrating WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by complaining about tags on articles they created.
  • Edit warred by reverting removals of content they originally posted. See: Special:Diff/11302093596, Special:Diff/1301634446, and Special:Diff/1302350307.
  • Engaged in POV pushing such as this proposal on titles for separate articles on human shields usage by Israel and Hamas: Special:Diff/1296267223. Or this one making accusations of "blood libel" against Israel: Special:Diff/1294986422. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Lean support I have not studied the issue too closely, but the frivolous complaint brought my attention to more serious issues with their editing. I do not think that they should be editing in this topic area until they understand how to use reliable sources. Indefinite block need not be infinite but the editor is not currently a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per EvansHallBear. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This dispute has consumed enough of the community's time and energy; their efforts to get us to spend even more time on it, in light of their other edits, are plainly tendentious. And, beyond that, it shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and practices in a way that seems likely to continue to waste the community's time; while inexperience alone isn't sanction-worthy, continuously ignoring the advice of more experienced editors and wasting everyone's time with scattershot efforts like this falls short of the higher level of WP:COMPETENCE necessary to edit a WP:CTOP where they clearly have strong feelings. --Aquillion (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. No closer, of any discussion on any topic, should be subject to so much badgering by a single editor. -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Support per above Kowal2701 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support As for the request to redo a RfC because some of the participants subsequently became topic-banned: if that was a general rule, we would have to redo the great majority of RfCs in the I-P-area, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per EvansHallBear and Aquillion. I've been unimpressed by this editor's contributions since I saw these in January: [22][23]. in response to their edits getting reverted by multiple editors, they've stated several times that the articles are "far from" NPOV or "not allowing" their edits, to an extent that seems tendentious or WP:DEADHORSE: (Israeli apartheid [24][25][26][27] and Zohran Mamdani [28][29][30][31][32]). They've also disregarded MOS:TERRORIST as recently as this month: [33]Rainsage (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support It feels to me like this user is trying every single avenue to get their way. I understand they disagree with the consensus and decisions made, but WP:DEADHORSE won't do anything. BeŻet (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support at minimum based primarily on their conduct at the HOUND thread, which includes baseless personal attacks against other editors and doubling down in the face of clear demonstration that other editors were in fact engaged in constructive work, and a generally uncollaborative WP:OWN attitude. I'm concerned that a topic-ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict alone does not address the disruption in relation to antisemitism topics outside the scope of the A-I conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassing Me on Wikipedia User:ChildrenWillListen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Respected Editors,

I am trying to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but User:ChildrenWillListen is repeatedly accusing me of being a paid editor without any proof [1].

Such behavior violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, and is discouraging for new contributors, contrary to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In the last month, this user has made over 5,000 edits, mostly challenging and reverting new editors, which feels disruptive.

He is also reverting Author deletion from Draft:China Piece (film) Shruti Siddhi Deshmukh (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesolicitors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: This has taught me that communicating with UPE editors and trying to get them to change isn't a good idea. I guess it was still worth a shot. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Shruti Siddhi Deshmukh: there is nothing wrong with querying another editor's possible paid editing status or other conflict of interest. And if a response is not forthcoming, it is also perfectly appropriate to repeat that query. Why couldn't you just answer it on your talk page, rather than bringing the matter here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review request at Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa#RfC about using 'Interim President' or just 'President'

Ahmed al-Sharaa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Hauskasic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toadspike&oldid=1303069613

Reasoning: There was general agreement on adding "interim" to his political post. Most neutral sources support this, though some do not. While the RfC may have been submitted unclearly, the arguments presented are still valid. The opposing arguments were primarily supported by official sources from the current Syrian government. Consensus is not a simple vote or unanimity—it is the general agreement reached after considering all viewpoints, especially those grounded in Wikipedia’s core policies and guidelines. Hauskasic (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Toadspike)

No evidence was presented that most sources call Ahmed al-Sharaa the "interim President of Syria", instead of just "President of Syria". Arguments in favor of interim were largely based on personal preference and editor's interpretations of the political situation in Syria, which is original research. Some editors asserted that "multiple" or "many" sources support use of "interim", but that was not in dispute: The RfC statement was clear that there are many sources on both sides. On the other hand, editors opposing the use of interim presented evidence that the government and al-Sharaa himself do not use the term "interim"; this went largely unrefuted. Since the slim majority in favor of "interim" did not presented any evidence in favor of their argument, especially not, as the appellant asserts, "viewpoints grounded in Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines", I could not close the RfC with consensus for a change to the article. It is curious that the appellant indirectly cites Polling is not a substitute for discussion; the only basis upon which I could have closed this discussion their way is by counting votes.

I also have several procedural qualms with the RfC: I noted in my close that it is possible some editors did not know what they were !voting for; It is certain that at least one editor misunderstood the argument of another editor, likely due to the inconsistent terms editors used to express themselves. Redrose64 also noted that the RfC listing was broken from 1 July onwards, which is two days after the RfC was opened. All but one comment came before the listing broke; I am unsure if these two facts are connected. Finally, in hindsight, the RfC statement ("Most sources refer to him as 'Interim', while others use 'President'") violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL by making an assertion (that most sources prefer one version) without evidence. I initially counted Gommeh on the side of those supporting the use of "interim", but looking at this again, I should not have done so, as Gommeh's comment was conditioned upon the RfC statement being accurate. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

• Endorse. While I hadn't gotten around to carefully combing the discussion, I had been glancing at it with an eye to closing it, and my first impression was "no consensus" too. I will note that, as far as I can tell, no relevant policy arguments were made at any point in the discussion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Global ban for Chealer

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

Hi, I made a notification on the village pump about this but I've been told that this is probably a better place to notify this wiki of this ban as per the global bans policy. In any case, the request is at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

James William Camba Escanilla vandalism

See [34] from the simple english wikipedia. A couple of IPs appear to have been vandalising in a similar pattern, adding "James William Camba Escanilla" as the governor of Bolinao. Special:Diff/1302682211. * 110.54.198.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302682311, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302682211

• 110.54.129.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302451207
• 182.255.43.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) possibly based on IP location
• 216.247.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1296660919
• 110.54.154.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1300294965
• 112.198.121.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1293307425
• 111.90.195.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1288084491
• 112.198.113.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possibly? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1293696710
• 112.198.120.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1294057759

Timtjtim (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Just referred to WP:AIV. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo's Talk Page Protection and problems donating

Sound and fury. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. While anyone can still edit Jimbo Wales page, his talk page is currently semi-protected. That makes perfect sense. I wanted let him know that I tried to donate my 2 cents, but the greedy foundation told me that it wasn't enough, even if I covered the $0.35 transaction fee too. If you won't accept my humble offering, I kindly ask that you stop showing me requests for donations. As they say, beggars can't be choosers. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC) There is no way to know that the person on your IP address at this given moment has seen a donation request. If you create an account, you can turn off the donation requests. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC) The requests shouldn't be shown to anyone if they aren't willing to accept donations of any amount over the transaction cost. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC) You're in the wrong place - administrators don't control that sort of matter. And anyone can register an account. Girth Summit (blether) 17:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC) Well, I wanted to talk to Jimbo since he is one of the founders and he is featured in the donation request, but his talk page is protected. Don't administrators control page protection? It seems like one of them might have screwed up if the idea that anyone can edit is to be substantiated. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC) Understandably, Mr. Wales' talk page is often disrupted. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC) Yes, but aren't there many volunteers and automated programs ready to revert vandalism in an instant? 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC) The transaction cost goes to the payment processor; it would probably cost the WMF more than 2 cents to collect your literal two cents. You are free to disagree with the collection policy of the WMF, but this isn't the place to discuss it. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC) Then maybe they should ask for volunteers to do that part too or include the cost of hiring people to count their money for them in the transaction costs. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC) You are correct in that they shouldn’t show the donations and it’s mathematically proven that WMF can survive a good few years without donations so you should donate to somewhere that really needs it like Miraheze, AN is the wrong venue 95.5.189.119 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC) The OP is just trolling (see the comment they made on this board yesterday). This discussion should be closed. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

can someone please anonymize my bot account?

Here. i thought this would be great for something but then i realized i don't know how to use programming languages other than mediawiki, so can someone anonymize it? Your Local Italian (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No. I've blocked it, since I see no evidence that you've obtained approval for any bots. See WP:BOT and WP:BAG. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Willbb234 unblock request

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I am copying over an unblock request from Willbb234 for the community's consideration. Please see their last request.

I return to AN to ask that the community places its trust in me and allows me to edit again. I have learnt in my time away through a reflection on how I edit here and particularly on how I communicate with others. Please allow me to summarise my thoughts.

It has been 18 months since I was blocked, and while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block (although I have now read through and reminded myself), I can recall the distress it caused others. Personal attacks are completely inappropriate and disrupt the process of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. They can also hurt or degrade others and personal attacks, especially of the sexual kind and even if intended as a joke, can make others very uncomfortable and deter them from continuing to edit Wikipedia. For these reasons, I intend to completely change how I interact with others, ensuring not to be at all personal when disagreement arises during discussions on content or policy.

I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack (such as abusive language or attacks on someone's nature or affiliations), why they are disruptive (as mentioned above), and the consequences of my actions (this indefinite block has demonstrated thus). I hope that I can be trusted to return to collaborative editing and would greatly appreciate this opportunity. I also understand that another personal attack would result in an indefinite ban that would certainly not be overturned. In other words, I ask you for a final chance. Willbb234 21:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not going to vote yet, but I do have thoughts. I am generally supportive of second chances, especially when the block is for what I might call egregious yet banal incivility. This is the kind of thing I think most people can learn to not do. However, I am concerned by the fact that he needed to post three unblock requests just now to realize he needed to address it; that's in addition to his previous attempts at an unban. It makes me wonder if he truly does understand, or is just trying to say what it takes to get unbanned. I'd like to hear others' thoughts before I commit to a side. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• I'm a big believer in ROPE but I'm concerned at an unblock request where the requester can't recall why they were blocked. If it was such a forgettable incident, then it would be easy for circumstances to repeat themselves. I think this "amnesia" is a way of not taking responsibility for whatever actions were taken or words said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I did in 2024, and more generally I'm against indeffing established users wor one-off incidents so don't think an indef was justified in the first place (which is a fringe minority position, and I know nearly no other admin will agree with me here). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. They got a history of edit warring (such as 1 2) in contentious topic areas. Also, Liz's point of forgetting when or why they were blocked doesn't help is spot on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  That was edit warring in spite of a 1RR restriction as a previous unblock condition, so some ROPE has already been afforded. Looking at their history of raising the temperature in GENSEX and AMPOL I can't support an unblock, that is the last thing those areas need right now. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Question for Willbb234 during the initial block you stated as a defense that the rev-delled personal attack which multiple admins characterized as sexual harassment was "just joking." Could you please address that line of argument and how you might act differently in the future? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock for the sole reason they managed to forget that they sexually harassed someone to the point it was pretty much an instant block and had to be revdeled. Forgetting that makes me have concerns about WP:CIR considering that's a major thing.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I can totally believe someone forgetting one thing they did several years ago, possibly in a moment of anger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Willbb234 asked me to copy over the following comment:

For the record I do remember why I was blocked despite what other users are suggesting. The reason I say I don't recall the exact circumstances is in response to the second unblock request decline where Arcticocean says "I would expect to see, at minimum, explanation of the reasons you previously made personal attacks." I simply find it difficult to do this when I can't accurately recall all of the details of the situation. I apologise for the confusion. I hope you won't blame me - I have a life that I have continued to live in the meantime and these details left my mind over time. Willbb234 23:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Support a final chance unblock. This seems like an honest request. I agree with @Pppery that it's not odd for someone to forget the exact circumstances of an event that occurred years ago, particularly when that event has been revdel'd. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Rename of Arjun G. Menon to ArtistProgrammer

ArtistProgrammer (talk · contribs · count) was recently sitebanned by the community under the username Arjun G. Menon. Before they were banned (but while the thread was heading in that direction), they requested a rename, which was declined by FlightTime (talk · contribs · count) per the pending ANI thread. A few days later, they filed a request on the global rename queue (link is renamer/steward only). They did not mention they had previously had a request declined, but they later explained they understood FlightTime's denial "pending the ANI thread" meant to re-request once the thread was closed, regardless of whether it ended in sanctions or not. That makes sense both as an interpretation of FlightTime's comment and how the rules might work: renaming a user in the middle of an ANI thread would be very confusing indeed.

On one hand, global rename policy (and common sense) forbids seeking [a] rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. On the other hand, there is a great deal of difference between a full, legal name and a pseudonym when you have a ban on a project, and there is a human on the other side of the username. I felt that a rename away from a real name in these circumstances was appropriate, so I performed it. I checked for previous requests in the rename queue (m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue), but did not check the on-wiki Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. I should have; that was a mistake on my part.

Meters (talk · contribs · count) raised an objection on my talk page, so I am bringing this for community consensus. I personally think ArtistProgrammer's own suggestion to keep the rename in place but place a banner on the (WP:NOINDEXed) userpage makes a neat balance between privacy and transparency. The fact that they made this suggestion and were open to this very public AN post indicates they are not seeking to conceal bad conduct, and I think the balance of privacy weighs in favor of honoring this good-faith request. Therefore, I support keeping ArtistProgrammer renamed, while adding a banner to their userpage disclosing the past rename (let's call this keep renamed+banner for subsequent commenters). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's fine to keep renamed with the banner, so long as ArtistProgrammer doesn't engage in any post-ban abusive conduct like socking or off-wiki harassment. I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if the old username weren't a real-life full-name, but given that it is, this feels like an equitable solution. We've allowed renames in the past for blocked or banned users under similar circumstances, IIRC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Originally, I left a simple message that I agreed with Tamzin. But that was before I read HouseBlaster's User talk page and the objections voices there. Given what I read there, it sounds like HB was on the verge of reversing the name change so I don't want to step in the way of your doing that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't want to reverse the rename. I think that they made a reasonable request, and as long as they don't start socking or doing anything else abusive, we should leave the rename in place. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 11:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• My post to HouseBlaster's page was more of a request for an explanation for how a rename in this situation was allowed, rather than a formal objection to the rename. I can understand the privacy issue for someone who was using their real name, but AGF only goes so far. The user has had significant personally identifying information (at various times: name; birthplace; birthdate; education; residence; citizenship; photo; social media page; personal web page; a refunded article he wrote about a company he worked for; etc) continuously on their user pages since very shortly after their account was created almost 17 years ago, and only as they were at ANI about to be blocked for coordinated harassment did privacy suddenly become an issue. As I wrote on HouseBlaster's page If this is allowed, so be it, but I'm surprised. We might as well add the aside "But don't worry too much, you can always request a rename if you get CBANned" to the various warnings about why using your real name and providing personal information isn't a good idea. Meters (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that's exactly unreasonable. I like having my full name on my userpage because it ties my identity to some stuff I'm pretty proud of: good and featured content, some widely-cited essays, some technical contributions. If my userpage started with "This user has been banned indefinitely", I'd probably be much less inclined to have that degree of association. In my case that wouldn't require a rename to obscure, but it's the same idea. Now we do say that sitebanned users are "completely ejected from the project", i.e. not members of our community anymore, but I do believe a limited degree of courtesy can be extended to someone who has not caused any post-ban disruption, if they have a good reason to want a rename. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think we're good with the rename away from a IRL name, and the clear connection to the past account, as long as there's no further disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I still stand by my two denials. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, not saying you're wrong here, but given the current state of affairs.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would have made the rename, but now that we're here, I don't like the idea of reimposing his real name on him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed – I commented that there was an open ANI discussion at the first rename request [35], my concern at the time was that a rename during the discussion could cause confusion. Now that a cban has been implemented I no longer have that concern and do not believe that a rename will obfuscate their conduct in any meaningful way. I'm unsure what the purpose of a banner would be, any unban requests will have to be proposed to and reviewed by the community, and I do not think that a rename will conceal conduct in that case. The idea of requiring a user keep their real name on their userpage is one that I'm uncomfortable with, even in the case of a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• The rename must be reversed or else we set a precedent in favor of bad-faith antics which can't be allowed to stand. And there was never going to be any "privacy" anyway as former usernames are inherently public. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, Thank you Pppery - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Revert rename - Per @Pppery: - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep renamed. Even though I voted for the siteban, unlike pppery, I don't see any bad faith antics here surrounding the rename. HB's arguments about real names resonates with me, and to pppery's point, I have no problem setting a precedent that even sitebanned users can get a rename away from their real name. I don't even think the banner is necessary for the reasons 15224 lays out above. As others point out, there is no obfuscation here since we know the renamed user is sitebanned, and they'll have to go to AN to get that lifted anyway. The rename isn't going to obfuscate or impede the siteban in any away. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

They requested rename twice in one venue, and were declined there. Then they WP:FORUMSHOPed to a different venue and were approved by a naive reviewer. That's by definition bad-faith antics. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not the definition, that's your interpretation, which is not supported by the facts. FlightTime specifically told him to resubmit after the ANI was over. When someone tells you to resubmit later and you resubmit later, that's not forum shopping, and it's not bad faith. As pointed out in the OP. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 95.5.189.119 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed+banner. As mentioned, the user followed FlightTime's direction to the letter. I, personally, would not have approved this, had I been in HouseBlaster's position, but I absolutely understand their reasoning, and what's done is done. Note that this may point out a flaw in the "one account/username across all projects" standard: is it fair to a user who is in good standing on all other Wikimedia projects to deny a global rename because they are blocked or banned on one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with reverting this rename or not, now it seems we need to be careful about what president we set with this discussion. I stand by my denials for that basic reason, I'll not action a request to a user if on a block or an open ANI thread, if that means my flag being removed, so be it.. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your denials were entirely appropriate, no complaints there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed. Renaming to avoid scrutiny is bad. The original request was a bad request in that regard. However, once the AN/I discussion was over, avoiding scrutiny was not a factor: the user was banned. Therefore, we know that the rename will not hide continuing disruption by the same user, as this user is unable to disrupt Wikipedia due to the ban. Adding in the real name issue, I believe the rename was properly timed. Now, if the user had not been banned, but rather had been warned, I would be concerned about a rename, as ongoing bad behavior may not be linked in some people's minds to the prior account name, which could allow the user to fly under the radar for a while. In short: the fact that the user was banned and the fact that it was a rename from a real name both contributed to making this an acceptable rename. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Luke10:27 unban discussion

A somewhat unusual unban request here: the appellant has recently come forward with the admission that they are a former vandal and sockpuppeteer. They cannot recall the names of most of their previous accounts, but were verifiably checkuser-blocked on one occasion and remember being blocked multiple times for sockpuppetry, so we can presume they are WP:3X banned and ought to be formally unbanned by the community. The following is their unban request.

Hello. I vandalized in the past using many accounts (the only one for which I remember the username is User:Leformefoldef) and have edited constructively using others. I am almost certain I have not vandalized under any username or IP since I created this account; before this one, while I was still vandalizing from other usernames and IPs, I had a "good hand" account that was eventually blocked for sockpuppetry. (I remember the username of this account, but I will not disclose it because the account is linked to my off-wiki identity.) 99.197.202.188 is the only IP that I have used that I have been able to identify, but there were others; I used that IP for both vandalism and legitimate edits.

At the time, I thought that vandalism was funny; I now see that it is not, and that I caused real disruption and harm by my actions. This could be attributed to simple teenage immaturity that I have outgrown, but that does not excuse what I did. I stopped vandalizing a couple years ago because I felt guilty about it for moral and religious reasons and realized that it was wrong. I saw constructive editing (particularly reverting vandalism, which has comprised a substantial portion of my activity on this account) as a way to make up for the harm that I did, but I now see that it was also wrong to evade my ban (I am community banned under WP:3X due to my repeated sockpuppetry and ban evasion), and that is why I decided to come forward, admit my wrongdoing, and appeal my ban.

Once again, what I did was totally wrong, unacceptable, and inexcusable. I want to continue to contribute to the Wikipedia project, but I want to do so in compliance with the project's policies, not in defiance of a legitimately imposed ban. Thus, I am asking the community to forgive my wrongdoing and lift my ban. If necessary, I am willing to refrain from editing for six months in order to take the standard offer. In any case, I promise to continue to refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia or otherwise editing in bad faith. Thank you for your time and consideration. Luke10.27 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

asilvering (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support unban. Furthermore, I do not think there is an reason to require this editor to take the standard offer. At this point, they have been editing constructively for quite some time, including more than two years on the present account; effectively, they've done a WP:QUIETRETURN. A recent CU check has found no obvious evidence of sockpuppetry or logged-out editing. They've been forthright in discussion of their previous actions (see User talk:Luke10.27#Multiple accounts) and I see no reason to doubt their account. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• I've written about this kind of thing before at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, describing a phenomenon that occasionally occurs on Wikipedia, wherein a blocked user returns to editing (see User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return), after some time is discovered (either by self-outing or by accident), and is not re-blocked for sockpuppetry due to their recent positive contributions. This can be viewed as an exercise in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and/or as a special case of WP:NOTPUNITIVE—the idea being that their new edits are prima facie evidence that a block is no longer needed. Luke meets all of the rough criteria I list in that essay, except I guess the last one (not banned), but that's mostly on a technicality and as I say there the above considerations may also be relevant in a community unban request. I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in enforcing an old ban for minor misconduct against a constructive contributor, and if I just stumbled on this in the wild I'd simply look the other way. Since they're appealing, sure, unban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban. Thank you for your transparency with us. I also really like this userbox, which is the most mature take on that topic I've heard in a long time. Toadspike [Talk] 14:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Support has a productive editing history which is what we'd ask for an editor to build. They've done so, so second @Asilvering that we don't need a new SO window. Star Mississippi 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism user

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Need help, this is Vandalism user. Special:Contributions/93.143.101.36 Special:Contributions/93.140.39.137 Special:Contributions/93.140.179.223 JohnDavies9612 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This should be reported at WP:AIV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

User:142.105.69.34

Keeps reverting valid edits of mine. Mostly dealing with removing subjective/POV terns from intro sentences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.105.69.34 Megainek (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

And that IP has complained about Megainek reverting their edit at Wikipedia:Teahouse. So I suggest a discussion on a talk page about how to proceed rather than edit warring. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding unilateral reversion of an article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, apologies if this is not the appropriate venue for this question.

I recently created the article Earl of Errol. After it was approved by a patroller and remained live for a fair amount of time, it was turned into a redirect to a disambiguation page by an admin, with a brief and somewhat unclear edit summary (i.e., "Redirect, not notable"). I was wondering whether such a unilateral reversion is considered justifiable for an admin to make, and whether doing so without prior discussion or notice is appropriate within Wikipedia norms.

Thank you. Courtesy ping to @Fram, though I intend this as a general question rather than one directed at any particular editor. Apologies if I should have posted this on the admin's talk page instead. Cheers. Daniel Plumber (talk) Choisir d'avancer 10:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Plumber: Any editor can blank and redirect ("BLAR") an article as an alternative to deletion. The editor who BLAR'd this article is a new page reviewer rather than an admin, but the rules for BLARing are the same regardless of user rights. The remedy to a BLAR is simple: You may revert it (ideally stating your objections in the edit summary). If you do so, the BLARing editor, or some other new page reviewer, has the option of taking the article to AfD instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! Daniel Plumber (talk) Choisir d'avancer 10:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

AfD started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl of Errol. Fram (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone Tried To Log Into My Account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not know if this is the right board for this, I couldn't find any other board that fits this situation. But I got a notification saying "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." This was not me, so I hope someone looks into that. Master106 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User permissions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am requesting the removal of all of my user rights, thank you. - Jerium (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done May the winds be always at your back. – robertsky (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to the functionaries team, July 2025

At their request, the permissions of the following four editors are removed:

• Alison (talk · contribs) – Checkuser
• Bradv (talk · contribs) – Checkuser & Oversight
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs) – Checkuser
• RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) – Checkuser & Oversight

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks each of these editors for their many years of service as functionaries in these roles.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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