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 {{subst:RfC closure review}}
• Accounts in the format ~2025-12345-67 are temporary accounts.

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|thread=}} ~~~~ 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	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	97	0	97
TfD	0	2	49	0	51
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	10	0	10
RfD	0	0	53	0	53
AfD	0	0	6	0	6

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 54 sockpuppet investigations
• 24 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 12 requests for RD1 redaction
• 5 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 69 requested closures
• 78 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 9 Copyright problems

Voting in the Arbitration Committee elections is now open

It's that time of year again. Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open, and runs until 23:59, 01 December 2025 (UTC). You can vote using the big blue button at the top of the linked page, or by going to Special:SecurePoll/vote/859. Giraffer (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Unban request from Elijah Wilder

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

---

Elijah Wilder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am extremely sorry for my prior actions and all of the problems I caused as well as the time I took up of those people. I promise that I haven’t tried to edit Wikipedia or make an account in the past 6 months. Back when I got blocked, I was making edits to pages that I thought needed to be edited as well as trying the templates on each of those pages. I was very curious about it back then and didn’t realize how much of an issue and impact it had by me doing that. I was also obsessed with power and wanted to do anything I could to get some sort of access level about everyone else. I did it because I was bored and I found Wikipedia and wanted to explore and somewhat mess around. Since then, I have realized how what I have done has caused many people to take a lot of time out of their days to deal with me. The edits I have been wanting to make have been around my county, town, and some of the businesses in my town listed there. I have gone through a lot of history things about my town and want to be able to share them with anyone whom is interested in reading it. To everyone who had to deal with me in the past and now, I have no words to express how sorry I am for the actions I have done. Elijah Wilder (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Carried over from their talk page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock pending check user. Has had sufficient time for personal growth sufficient to become a constructive contributor.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  This next seems obvious to me, but they need an unblock condition of a one account only restriction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a one account restriction. Toadspike [Talk] 06:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support with one account. See User talk:Elijah Wilder#Unblock Request- Elijah Wilder for more info about past sockpuppetry and current CU response. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  A link to Asivering's CU comment. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock. It's been a little short of three years since the original block, a little under a year and nine months since the last sockpuppet use, and longer than that since the last abusive editing, as far as I know. That is plenty of time for a young person to change their approach, and I believe we should give them a chance to show that they have done so. JBW (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Ban appeal

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

---

Some time has passed since my t-ban Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos. I would like to see if this ban can be narrowed (to maybe just the specific article) or even removed. Five years has passed since the offense and I am apologetic about it and think I have demonstrated good behavior since then. Particularly I would like to just get the ban narrowed so I don't accidently run afoul of it, as I do like to edit Asia topics. I don't have any particular interest in topics in the offending country, I rather was uncivil on this particular article. Since this offense I have learned to use noticeboards or talk pages more when dealing with what I feel is BLP issues on a page of a former politician. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I just read the discussion that resulted in your topic ban from Imelda Marcos, and in all honesty, I concluded that you had engaged in pretty severe misconduct, especially regarding aggressive removal of references to reliable sources that you disliked, and that your misconduct went way beyond incivility. Accordingly, I am reluctant to agree to remove or narrow the topic ban, at least until you explain why you went off the rails so badly and how you can assure us that it will not happen again. You say that you are interested in editing Asia articles, but your topic ban does not mention Asia, and I feel confident in saying that over 99.9% of articles about Asia do not even mention Imelda Marcos. You should be able to edit those articles in compliance with policies and guidelines without any worry about your topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I recall the source that I removed was an alleged book that the editors had stated was so rare and could not be found anywhere online and that they had to go to the library to read and and we need to trust them on it. That source was being used for a large quantity of negative content. I simply went off the rails removing the excessive negative POV from the article subject. The tban I think covers all topics in that country and is not limited to that family empire, thus I would need to (for example) be careful when editing the scam center articles that touch Philippines (such as Alice Guo, etc). During the ban discussion editors were not interested in hearing any explanation, and started threatening me with a full ban when I explained early on, so I stopped explaining it as I didn't want to get a full ban. Sometimes you have to just know when to quit, and it was already too late, so better late than never. Anyhow, thanks for your consideration the ban isn't a big deal and as you said I can continue to edit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, your recollection of the "rare book" issue is deeply flawed. Did you bother to re-read that discussion to refresh your memory? When you use the word "alleged" today, are you trying to create doubt that the book exists? Do you object to the policy that books whose text is not available online can be reliable sources? Here is the complete and entire wording of your topic ban: you are now topic banned from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed. Please explain why you just wrote The tban I think covers all topics in that country when that is quite obviously not the case? Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, apologies I hadn't re-reviewed the t-ban discussion, was just going off memory and could easily be flawed given the time that has passed. I thought I recalled someone saying in the ban that broadly construed meant all politics in the subject country, so I was just going off that from an abundance of caution. Apologies again for not checking into it more closely before raising this. The reason I didnt look again was my recollection was that I failed to find consensus for the changes (I should have used a third opinion when I felt I was facing BLPRESTORE issues with regular editors of the article, and to my recollection I had only showed up on that article recently to do some cleanup of NPOV issues that I felt I saw). Here really isnt the venue to justify my actions, as I have already stated my actions were wrong. Anyhow, water under the bridge at this point and I recognize that you and apparently other editors below here dont support any change to the ban. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Comments in this thread make clear that the user has not changed their attitude that was at the core of the t-ban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose One of the most important behavioral characteristics of a productive Wikipedia editor is to accurately and fully describe the circumstances when trying to resolve any dispute or controversy. This may require re-reading previous discussions especially when a lot of time has gone by. This is especially important when appealing a sanction. This editor has clearly not presented accurate information here and has admitted that they have failed to even take a few minutes to refresh their own memory. I cannot support any modification of a sanction when the editor understands neither why the sanction was imposed nor the boundaries of the sanction. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

A plea to admins to increase efficiency

Recently, I've been having a number of medical issues which have made life difficult. This has made me very conscious of how much effort I have to put into even small tasks. It has also made me quite impatient at times when having to deal with long duration, high level pain. To all of my fellow admins, I beg of you; if you've handled a situation reported at WP:AN/I such that another administrator doesn't need to do anything further, please take the time to add {{atop}} and {{abot}} templates to close the discussion. It's frustrating to start spending a fair bit of time trying to untangle something being reported on WP:AN/I only to found out an administrator has already dealt with it, and the time you invested in trying to tackle the issue was a complete waste. Even if I wasn't suffering my current medical issues, I would tell all of you; this helps us all. The number of active administrators is quite small relative to the number of things that need to be managed. Taking a little bit of time to close a discussion can save a lot of admin time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC) (To some; don't worry, I'm going to live and theoretically be pain free in about two weeks. To others; sorry to disappoint, but I'm going to make it out of all this alive for the foreseeable future. Though, take heart; I'm going to suffer for a long time yet!)

Is there anything I can do to help - add a specific post to the bottom perhaps so you can see it? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I was one taken to ArbCom because somebody decided that by closing the ANI topic with a {{atop}} I was saving the user against which the topic was open (who happened to be administrator, and thus I allegedly protected a colleague administrator, as dictated by the admin cabal). This was one of my ArbCom experiences which was relatively painless, but still it was not nice. I just stopped closing topics except for really (imo) obvious cases. Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear you will be OK in the relative short term, but sorry to hear you're dealing with health issues.

When folks don't feel it's ready for closure or that they shouldn't be the one to close (myself included at times), please at least bold your action so we know which part of it is done and which may need further action. P-block, etc. and editors can decide whether to continue to weigh in or scroll on to open items. For all the internet history against all caps, INDEF does not stand out the way INDEF does to these tired middle aged eyes. Star Mississippi 23:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not comfortable closing discussions where I have taken administrative action. Other editors often bring forth additional information that may transform a one week block into an indefinite block, or other relevant information that I did not notice. I am sometimes criticized as too lenient or too strict, and I try to be receptive to such feedback, and am reluctant to shut down that input. I also try to state clearly what administrative action I have taken although I was recently delayed on one report because my four month old puppy got into mischief. I will try to remember Star Mississippi's suggestion and BOLD the actions I have taken. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been self-closing the simple ones. For example, TPA revocation requests when the disruption is clearly there. Unfortunately, the real reading and review burden is for the complex ones. Maybe remind admins to close topics when they read them and find nothing else is needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Not too long ago, someone made the suggestion of using status templates (like "needs attention" or "resolved") that would help reviewing admins focus on just those threads that needed review without wasting their time on threads that didn't need further review. I don't remember what it was called or where/when it was discussed exactly. It was a good idea, so it was not adopted. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There are the different colored flags at {{ANI status}} which may help fulfill this purpose. Left guide (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's the one -- thanks! That could be used, as one example, in the situations where someone thinks a thread is ready to be closed but for whatever reason doesn't want to close it. And also, as another example, it can be used to highlight the threads that need attention, so editors don't have to read all of the threads to figure out which ones need attention. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is super helpful, thanks @Left guide Star Mississippi 03:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I really like this! Pretty similar to what we're doing at WP:AINB! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• I don't close discussions where I've used admin bits or authority, unless it was trivial like fixing a broke page. To me, real discussions should NOT be closed by the admin that took action, it should be left over for review, at least by one other person (admin or not) that is qualified to close the discussion. Accountability is the reason. Closing a discussion where I blocked someone, or put some other sanction, then closing it, strikes me as very bad form, like I would be trying to stop further discussion or sweep it under the rug. I would instead suggest avoiding the long discussions, or jump to the bottom first, which is something I actually do before I invest time in reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that closing when you've taken admin action is a bad idea, with some exceptions (the one I can think of offhand is WP:DENY-type closes when you've blocked a sockpuppet). -- asilvering (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase

There's a large backlog at this page right now, with over 60 requests currently waiting for a response. Some admin help may be appreciated here. Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A reminder to admins helping out - please remember to tag the entries you protect at RFPP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @The Bushranger. I forget there's no bot like at UAA that handles that piece. Definitely guilty of a few protect and runs. My apologies. Star Mississippi 03:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Deleted Contributions

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

---

Hello,

I’ve noticed that some of my contributions on ANI have been deleted. I have re-added the content, but I am concerned it may be removed again. My edits were made in good faith, and comply with Wikipedia policies.

I would appreciate it if an administrator could review these deletions to ensure they are justified and to prevent repeated removal of content that adheres to Wikipedia standards. For reference, the edits in question include:

• Orlando Davis LLM

Thank you for your time and assistance. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for fixing the double redirects in Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information

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

---

Hello. Please anyone here for fix the double redirects in redirect pages Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information. Thanks. ~2025-37499-53 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for fixing the double redirects in Jon Blake (broadcaster)

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

---

Hello. Please anyone here for fix the double redirects in redirect pages Jon Blake (broadcaster). Thanks. ~2025-37838-92 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

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

---

The context is that the user @Phoenixxfeather: removed a politician's name from an article (which contained one of his statistics), which was an obvious vandalism, so I reverted it and warned him with uw-vandalism2. After that, he accused me of political affiliation (which is false), claimed that I am spreading "false propaganda," and, most importantly, made hostile statements such as "Be careful before threatening me the next time. I will report you." I felt offended and warned him with uw-harass4im template. After that, it escalated further, and he said,"IF YOU KEEP THREATENING ME THIS WILL NOT END GOOD FOR YOU. ALSO MY VERY LAST WARNING TO YOU! I HEREBY ORDER YOU TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH PROVOCATIVE AND THREATENING STATEMENTS!"

These messages contain intimidation, personal attacks, and escalating hostility, with no attempt to discuss content or policy.

Link to their talk page containing the full exchange: User talk:Phoenixxfeather#December 2025

• diff1
• diff2

Also, let me show you something, which might be irrelevant to this report, but still...

• Talk:Bangladesh Premier League#Remove Shakib Al Hasan, who is a convicted criminal and is currently on the run
• Talk:2021–22 Bangladesh Premier League#Sponsorship is in the name of the Fascist Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur

He just wants to spread his political opinion through wikipedia, not knowing what wikipedia is not.

This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I have not responded further to avoid escalation, and I am requesting admin intervention. Raihanur (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Response to Allegation by User: Raihanur

I reject the baseless and misleading claims made by User @Raihanur regarding our recent interaction.

Firstly, it is important to clarify that the user Raihanur was the first to engage in threatening behavior after reverting my contribution without any attempt at explanation, dialogue, or assuming good faith. Instead of addressing the issue respectfully, Raihanur issued an aggressive vandalism warning without prior discussion, and then escalated further by using an inappropriately high-level harassment template (uw-harass4im), implying deliberate harassment, which was both unwarranted and provocative.

Had Raihanur chosen to approach the matter with civility or provided any explanation, this escalation could have been avoided. Mutual respect and good faith are the cornerstones of any collaborative platform, especially Wikipedia. However, Raihanur's immediate resort to warnings and intimidation demonstrates a lack of interest in discussion or policy-based resolution. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope ChatGPT is not hiding the boorish behaviour underneath ~2025-37961-94 (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize! I didn’t realize my use of ChatGPT required external approval! Phoenixxfeather (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:AITALK. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

noted! Phoenixxfeather (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I hereby retract all statements I made toward the user @Raihanur, as the exchange became personal and, in my view, has no place on a platform such as Wikipedia.

However, I do not issue an apology, as I believe the remarks directed at me by the aforementioned user constituted a personal attack. Consequently, I have nothing further to add regarding this matter.

Should my conduct warrant any disciplinary measures in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines, I fully understand and accept the consequences. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: The user is removing those conversations from the talk page. I've reverted it once. Raihanur (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages, subject to a few exceptions - see WP:BLANKING. ~2025-37877-41 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got it now. Raihanur (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Query: Just to check, is this the right place for this discussion, or should it be at WP:ANI? Raihanur (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  ANI as it is a chronic incident. Requesting speedy closure of this section. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

GrandKokla rename request

GrandKokla has made a rename request on Meta for the username GrandNewbien. They mentioned the reason: "I use the GrandNewbien username across the web, including here when it was previously banned for vandalism. It was a mistake in my tween years, and now being in my 30s, I deeply regret it." While GrandNewbien is not registered, the account Grandnewbien is registered and was blocked on English Wikipedia in 2007 for vandalism, and I believe this is the account they are referring to. If so, do they need to request an unblock from their current account, GrandKokla, in order to edit English Wikipedia, since they likely no longer have access to the old Grandnewbien account to request an unblock from there? Or can they edit enwiki without any unblock request? I want to be clear on this so I can handle the rename request accordingly and guide them on the next steps. Noting that they have already made 67 edits to English Wikipedia with the GrandKokla account. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Grandnewbien was able to log in and file an appeal in 2022 (see Special:Diff/1099313857), so it does seem like they have access to the account (at least within the past few years). Their unblock request was declined due to a lack of response rather than for a specific issue. Can they log in and file a new appeal, and be sure to address any queries about it when asked? —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, he appears to have access to Grandnewbien, as that account visited Commons in June. JayCubby 18:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I do have access to that account as well, would my edits made on this account be merged with that one? I'll submit another request for an unblock. GrandKokla (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be merged. However, if you can demonstrate that you have access to "Grandnewbien" and successfully appeal the block, you can usurp it so that your new account can use the name of your old account. The edits on your old account would be moved to a different username ("Grandnewbien (usurped)"). —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

BLP problems

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

---

I need another pair of eyes. Let's start with this diff, where the BLP is trampled--I didn't know the extent until I scrolled all the way down, to the "exposure" bit. In addition, the editor has a problem with the article creator (who, BTW, also has a COI), and outed them. I really want out of this mess: I am way too involved to take the actions that I think are necessary, which also included revdel, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I see a healthy dose of WP:IDHT from that editor. Especially with the warning about posting personal info, which is a big no no. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I just revdeled a bunch of his edit summaries. Left the text as it was for now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have closed the DRN request, both because discussion on the article talk page was inadequate, and because discussion is also in progress in another forum, here at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

(As the editor who offered to moderate the DRN discussion) Is it fair to say the discussion is still ongoing pos-revdel, when no one has said anything in over a day? It might make sense to wait for Lhotserunner to say something here but I don't know that they plan to. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 05:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Lhotserunner asked a question at my talk. More guidance and attention to the article would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the article. Honestly, it's not that bad any more. Some excessive detail. Things are well sourced. The bits missing that @Lhotserunner is complaining about I'm struggling to find sources for online, or they're things Lhotserunner has a very negative view of (e.g. the death of Michael Matthews), that isn't supported by the RSes / the court of law.

This comment [1] on Johnuniq's talk is just riddled with libel - @Drmies, @Seawolf35 at this point I think a short block is in order, it's a real case of WP:IDHT. Timtjtim (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Timtjtim, I appreciate you getting in on this, and User:Johnuniq, thanks as well. Yes, riddled with libel--as far as I'm concerned the user is NOT HERE and simply needs to be blocked. And "my new Dutch friend"--WTF? am I to be outed next? Oversighters can see, in Lhotserunner's contributions, that I wouldn't be the first one to get outed. That, combined with the libel, the edit warring, the insults, the BLP violations--surely that's enough. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What libel? The information provided was published years ago by respected magazines and newspapers and no one sued anyone. Rather than focussing on each other do you want to work on this story? Lhotserunner (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't especially want to work on this story, no. I want you to stop violating BLP, and start listening to everyone around you.

I don't care if respected magazines and newspapers (allegedly) published it, I care if it's allowed on Wikipedia. The entire time you've engaged in this edit war, and still here, you have alluded to books, magazines and newspapers, and provided exactly 0 evidence to back up you claims. Please, please understand how we cannot just take your word that what you say is true when you provide no evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary. If you can provide copies of those news reports, I'll take a look at them; until then, I want you to start following the Wikipedia rules about libel. Frankly, though, if you can't see how accusing someone of murder, contrary to a court case, is libel, I doubt you're going to. I've outlined what I expect from you, and the problems with what you're doing, here: [2] and I really don't want to keep repeating myself to someone who's WP:ICHY:

Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive.

Genuine belief that you have a valid point does not mean that point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

Please just move on from this. If you want your accusations researched, and your alleged evidence published, reach out to one of those respected newspapers. Timtjtim (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. I and others already did and the detes I'm pointing out were published years ago. As I said, I won't make another attempt to edit your story. "The community," I hope, isn't just a single opinion block! Even newspapers have editors who war with each other over these issues. Lhotserunner (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I've indeffed the editor. That's a lot of unwanted behavior and they are really not getting the point. WP:BLP is not an option. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all! Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Hipal blanked sourced dob, says United Press International is "unreliable"

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

---

Hipal blanked Demie's date of birth (repeatedly) then trolled my talk page saying it was "unsourced" (an outright lie) and "poorly sourced defamatory" (also an outright lie). This is beyond ridiculous and must be stopped.

(Of course, the CABI has indisputable proof of Demie's age, but Wiki has some bizarre rule forbidding it so we have to make due with secondary sources like UPI.) Was-a-singin (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hipal_blanked_sourced_dob,_says_United_Press_International_is_"unreliable" --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Twinkle block reason field

A change has been proposed for Twinkle's block module for which your input would be welcome. Right now, there are checkboxes to refer to the filter log and deleted contribs in the block reason. Would it be useful to add another one for related temporary accounts? It only shows up when blocking a temporary account. Screenshot available in https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/pull/2250. – SD0001 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the idea that this would prompt an admin reviewing the block to look at the underlying IP and see what other TAs attached to it have been up to? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. – SD0001 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The change is now live. – SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

User:LAyub12

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

---

Can someone please ban the account User:LAyub12? Their only objective is to plant false death information on biographies of living people. Thanks. Jkaharper (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jkaharper The correct place for this kind of report is WP:ANI. Toadspike [Talk] 15:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks – I did originally draft it out there but changed my mind and put it here. I'll stick it there now. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Page in main namespace needs to be deleted/moved to other namespace, but can't be edited?

[3]NZ-non-WANZ-members is placed in the main namespace, and is listed in e.g. the newpages feed, but is not editable (is some mass-message list?). I suppose this shouldn't be possible, but as it needs deletion an admin is needed. @Schwede66: you created this, perhaps you can explain what is happening? Fram (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia namespace. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Probably not the right location either (should be with some project, and when editing is listed suddenly as a "special" page). In any case, such pages shouldn't be creatable in the mainspace, serve no purpose there. Fram (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there's definitely a valid task to restrict MassMessage to operating in certain namespaces. Izno (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

phab:T411661 now. Izno (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Right then. Sorry for creating a mess. This did end up in the wrong namespace, and I wasn't awake enough to notice that. For how it happened:

• Wikipedia:Mass message senders has, under the heading "Before making your request", a line that reads: "Administrators and template editors may create lists with a special content model via Special:CreateMassMessageList."
• That opens a form at Special:CreateMassMessageList
• Nothing there indicates that you must move the list to a particular namespace after creating it.

Once you've stuffed it up, you'll probably remember for next time. But it would obviously be better for the form to be set up so that the list gets created in the correct namespace. Schwede66 23:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You can consider trying it right now, but I'm guessing the page title input there is for a {{FULLPAGENAME}} and not the {{PAGENAME}}. Izno (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

2025 Arbitration Committee election preliminary results

The (uncertified) results of the 2025 ArbCom elections have been posted at WP:ACE2025.

We owe a massive thanks to EPIC, Mykola7, and XXBlackburnXx for their incredibly quick scrutineering, wrapping up just a little over a day after voting closed.

Many congratulations to those elected! Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Master Editor user breaking guidelines

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

---

User:DanielRigal is engaging in edit warring and removing Talk page posts because they do not adhere to his personal beliefs and this appears to be an ongoing issue. He is also making false claims in his reasons for editing in order to attempt to evade the guidelines (e.g. "trolling" and "weird copypasta"). In addition, he has also made multiple ban threats against me, including threatening that I will be banned if I report him on this page. ~2025-36066-88 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I was just gathering diffs and preparing a report on this temporary account but it seems that they have saved me the bother. Rather than start a separate section I'll just paste it here:

~2025-36066-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36066-88 is engaged in transphobic trolling. They are clearly only here to try to cause trouble by making deliberately offensive statements. Their sole edit in article space was an unexplained and POV content removal at Gender nonconformity which was reverted (not by myself). Apart from that it is all just Talk page griefing: 1 (Note the inflamatory section title and the use of "transgenderism"), 2, 3 (moaning about the article being correct). That latter edit is being repeatedly reinstated despite it being nothing but WP:NOTFORUM trolling. My reversions were all well within the spirit of NOTFORUM and WP:DENY.

~2025-36066-88 has ignored valid warnings and seems to be familiar enough with at least some of our policies to know what they are doing.

In summary, I think a strong and decisive BOOMERANG is required here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed, NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Here to socialise, not to build an encyclopedia

User:Trish stratus01 has been jumping all over talk pages with what seems to be attempts to socialise - see for example multiple edits on the Stratus talk page that have been reverted. I very much doubt it's the real Trish Stratus but rather a fan. The user is fairly new but even at this stage I don't this user is here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Could we have some admin thoughts on this? ~2025-38328-52 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The user page says parody. I sent to WP:UAA. CMD (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Softblocked for using the name of a real well-known person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections - Discussion Phase

The discussion phase of the December 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 4–8 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Discussion phase.

On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

TMNT

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

---

Edit warring about the genres of TMNT films; Multiplivision, and Zingo156Hollowdame (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll say this one more time: Box Office Mojo is NOT a reliable source for film genres. Multiplivision (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It is; we use it all the time for box-office records; look at the facts, bro Hollowdame (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's for box office records. We NEVER use BOM for film genres. Multiplivision (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Multiplivision on this. Box Office Mojo can be used as a source for box office records, but not for genres. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Multiplivision (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In which part of Wikipedia saids that! Hollowdame (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

????? Multiplivision (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In what world do we ever use Box Office Mojo as a source for film genres? Explain that to me. Multiplivision (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

When we want to prove that one film is one genre and not the other. Hollowdame (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

NO ONE has ever used BOM for film genre sourcing tfym Multiplivision (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ll stop edit warring under the conditions that you find sources for Superhero film. Hollowdame (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Lmao enjoy being blocked for edit warring then Multiplivision (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring should be taken to WP:ANEW. Anything else looks like a content issue that should be discussed on article talk pages, with WP:DR available if necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

[4] Should this do it then Hollowdame (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not here, admins don't deal with content disputes. Please take this discussion to the article Talk page and talk it through with other editors. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hollowdame blocked 24 hours for 6RR on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 film). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Assistance with COI editor at Barclay Tagg

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

---

Could an admin who is well versed in COI issues guide RachelAtSackatoga to her desired edit to Barclay Tagg, an article she has selfdeclared COI with?
Some of her desired changes are likely fine, specifically the "Early Life and Education" through "Major Racing Wins (Selected)" sections (assuming the sources are up to par) but some WP:PRIMARY is used giving me pause, and some peacock phrasing and unsourced Personal Life claims are an issue. I object to the change in the short description and infobox (infobox should be a summary, not an all inclusive list of wins). Discussion present at User talk:RachelAtSackatoga#Managing a conflict of interest, feel free to take the lead, I'm fairly close to the end of my knowledge of this matter and would like someone better versed in COI and WP:RS to assist. Thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

ANI case needs action

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

---

WP:ANI § Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE needs action. There is widespread support for a community sanction, including from multiple admins. Has been open for days without a vote in over 24 hours. The editor in question is also continuously misusing their talk page after having been warned [5] by @Star Mississippi (who is mostly unavailable this week) that this could lead to losing TPA, so action may be needed there as well. NicheSports (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I need to notify this editor given they were already notified about the ANI filing, but let me know if I do actually need to. Thanks NicheSports (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access for the duration of his block. Someone else should evaluate the CBAN discussion, since I've done this. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with Polygnotus' decision to ping a random admin to the ANI case, but now we have this [6]. Can someone familiar with such cases please help take over and assess the CBAN before this situation gets even more complicated. NicheSports (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

user:162 etc. removing move request for no reason

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

---

The user:162 etc. is literally removing the move request at FIFA World Cup 2026 for no reason, you can check the move request itself on the talk page. ~2025-38412-37 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This IP editor is acting in bad faith and has been reported to WP:AIV. See also WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. 162 etc. (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I threw a boomerang. It didn't hit me because I'm bad at throwing boomerangs. Izno (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And also this is the relevant LTA, yes. Izno (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

FYI, this is almost certainly the same person as the OP. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Note this is now a serial block evader with multiple underlying-IP blocks for RM-related disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the other side of this as well, feels like RM disruption has become a fad of late for a quite random selection of topics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but reverting this when blatant is OK right? I noticed others have been more reluctant to do so and instead engaging or closing such RMs, as I did previously with some of these, until today at least. CNC (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, when it's blatant, WP:RBI applies (well, if you're not an admin maybe 'RRI' - revert, report, ignore - but it's the principle of the thing). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, insightful essay as well. CNC (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lt.gen.zephyr

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

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

Appealing user

Lt.gen.zephyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

"You are indefinitely banned from military topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed."

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

waived

Statement by Lt.gen.zephyr

I am appealing for an unban for the topic ban on military related articles on Bangladesh. Approximately two months ago, Tamzin had imposed a topic ban on me [7] (I had removed the notification from my talk, so I extracted it from the history of my talk page and posted here) regarding COI. I acknowledge my mistake, and have realized the mistake. In future, I will edit and none of my future edits will reflect my interest, they will be done only on the basis of neutrality. For the past two months, I have edited and created numerous military related articles (mostly biographies of army generals), and intend to contribute in the same way for Bangladesh military articles. I assure you that none of my future edits will have any COI related issue, and if any serious issue is found, I will be happy to be banned again. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin : I want to make it clear that I am not an agent for the Bangladeshi government or military in any capacity. My earlier wording created that impression about being an agent, and that was entirely my mistake.
That time while me removing the units, most of them were completely unsourced. I found nothing about those mentioned units online to cite as a reference. I do not think it is suitable to add an unsourced claim to the wikipedia.
Additionally, wikipedia is not a blog nor newspaper that has to mention each and every little thing of a topic. You wont find much articles containing detailed units under a division or brigade of the military of the countries of Indian Sub Continent. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing : What I meant was I would contribute in the same manner as I contribute in Pakistan/Indian military articles. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin : I belong from a military background. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

I'll quote my reasoning for imposing the TBAN:

You have been sanctioned due to long-term conflict-of interest editing, including edits that can be interpreted as using Wikipedia to censor your fellow-countrymen on behalf of your government. Recently, you have been removing information about Bangladeshi military units. While those edits might be defensible on the basis of WP:PROVEIT or WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, the troubling part is that both in your edit summaries and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh § Military Units you have explicitly said you will do this even where the material is sourced, in the interests of the Bangladeshi military's operational security. And at User talk:Mehedi Abedin § Units you have said that you have been directly related to the army since 2007 and then asked Mehedi to not reinstate such information about our military. Whether or not you intend it this way, this certainly can be read as an attempt at intimidation, with you being a representative of the state and implying that Mehedi's actions go against the interests of the state. Even if this was not your intention, this is at a minimum a conflict of interest in the most literal sense: Your interests as someone affiliated with the Bangladeshi military are in conflict with Wikipedia's interest in neutrally discussing the Bangladeshi military, and you have shown that this is able to cloud your editorial judgment.

At present I am not convinced, from Lt.gen.zephyr's appeal, that they understand the seriousness of this COI issue, or that they have a good plan in place to avoid COI issues going forward. Acknowledging the existence of a COI is the bare minimum. I'd like to see an explanation of how, if Zephyr is unbanned, other Bangladeshi editors can be expected to feel free of government pressure should they find themselves in a content dispute with Zephyr. And frankly I'm not sure what such an explanation could look like. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but once someone has established themself as a government agent acting on behalf of that government's wishes, I think that is something pretty hard to come back from. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lt.gen.zephyr: If you are not an agent of the Bangladeshi military, what exactly is your relationship to it dating back to 2007, as referenced in your comment to Mehedi Abedin? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lt.gen.zephyr: If you have a (presumably Bangladeshi) military background, and you are making edits on Wikipedia to promote the interests of the Bangladeshi military—not just a general POV, but requests they've made to have certain information censored—then you are acting as an agent of the Bangladeshi military; see wikt:agent sense 2. This is true regardless of what your title is, regardless of even whether you currently have any paid position with the military. The question for Wikipedia's purposes is whether you are editing on your own behalf, or on behalf of your government. What you've said so far conveys that it is the latter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive359 § Lt.gen.zephyr postdated the IPA→SA changeover, which ought to constitute awareness per WP:AWARE. Admittedly the filing user used the outdated code "IPA", but AWARE just says any process relating to the contentious topic, which I think that filing pretty clearly was. In the alternative, this noticeboard has the jurisdiction to impose a topic ban itself, without regard to awareness, if it's determined my initial action was procedurally invalid. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a general thought here, and @DoubleGrazing may have already said it better, but: I've been meaning for a while to write an essay called "Conflict of interest is about conflict of interest". There are a lot of things we can use as proxies for whether a COI is likely to exist, but ultimately what we're really trying to answer is whether someone has an interest that conflicts with their interest in improving the encyclopedia. So we can say, for instance, that a company's employee is presumed to have a COI and a university's student isn't, but it may in fact be the case that a given Walmart cashier has zero loyalty to (or avarice toward) their employer, while some student may be a hardcore booster of their school and see its standing as an extension of their own. This is also why there's no easy answer on whether owning stock in a company confers a COI, as it may come down to whether the user thinks Wikipedia's coverage of the company affects the stock price, whether they're planning on selling anytime soon, and other subjective factors.

All of which is to say that, in this case, we don't need to look to those proxies for COI, because we have direct evidence that Zephyr's interests are in conflict. Whether that's because they're in the military, are a veteran, are close with people in the military, or just really love their country doesn't really matter when we know they're making edits based on what they think is best for the military, not for Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There we go: WP:COICOI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lt.gen.zephyr

• Remarkable that the appellant is offering (I think?) to avoid COI editing, and then explicitly goes on to say they "intend to contribute in the same way for Bangladesh military articles". --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• This appeal, and its complete about-face on the question of COI, is rather shocking just two months after these talk page comments. Illuminating quotes include In several articles,I've removed mentions of specific, low-level military units [...]. Operational Security and Privacy is the primary reason, followed shortly by Bangladesh Army has not mentioned any unit's location publicly, they merely mention a few units out of hundreds. I also cannot be certain this user is not communicating through an LLM. I cannot support an unban. Toadspike [Talk] 11:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• I would decline to lift the ban. The talk page notes linked above, plus contradictory messages here makes it pretty clear that the initial topic ban was well founded and nothing in this appeal changes that. It seems pretty clear there is a COI, and this appeal seems misleading, which is grounds enough to deny the appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Decline, of course per above reasons. Obviously, the restriction is needed to prevent what has the appearance of state-sponsored disruption. Whether or not it is state-sponsored, appellant's conflict of interest precludes their editing in this subject area. The question of WP:NOTHERE has not been raised in this thread, so it is to be hoped that appellant can and will edit constructively in other areas of this encyclopedia.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: Thank you for your, as always, informative and illuminative précis. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I do not believe that Zephyr is on the payroll of the Bangladeshi military, nor do I even particularly think they have a strong enough conflict of interest to be invoking that guideline. At the same time, I also agree with Tamzin's action, and would generally decline to support lifting it, as their edits were disruptive, though I do question the awareness of the editor, as their original introduction to contentious topics only specified India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, not the expanded South Asia contentious topics designation. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 13:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  How do you account for their statement, "I belong from a military background"? I'm having a hard time parsing it. --Yamla (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure "belong[ing to] a military background" is necessarily COI in and of itself. It could entirely mean that one's parents were in the military, and nothing else. I don't think that necessarily makes one involved, but might make one more patriotic. I think what's being seen with Zephyr is not necessarily COI, but (misguided) attempts at patriotism. Now, I could be entirely wrong there, they could have a much stronger connection than I'm parsing, but from "background" I tend to think a family history of military service, not necessarily a connection to the military in a personal or professional arrangement. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 13:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  If one's parents were in the military, to use your example, I would argue that that already gives rise to at least an apparent COI, if not an actual one. If one then goes around sanitising military-related articles in line with that apparent COI, I'd say we're in duck territory (not in the sock sense, just general anatine). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, a Lieutenant General is a senior officer. As such, appellant would have a built in conflict of interest. Ignoring that fact, is not " patriotic" a conflict of interest when that patriotism informs one's editing of Wikipedia? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  COI isn't just about cash. COI can just as easily be based on ideological, nationalistic or religious reasons, etc. if there any direct or strong enough indirect ties, which seems to be the case here. It is about being unable to be objective due to a past or current association, whether or not there was financial compensation involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies, Tamzin, I didn't see that. Agreed, probably constitutes enough awareness, though on the weaker end. I have no further procedural qualms. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 14:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Lt.gen.zephyr: In your appeal, you wrote, "none of my future edits will reflect my interest, they will be done only on the basis of neutrality. [Since my topic ban], I have edited and created numerous military related articles ... and intend to contribute in the same way for Bangladesh military articles". So your intended future edits will reflect your interest in Bangladeshi military topics. The most recent military biography you created is about an Indian, Manish Arora (officer).
  1. On what grounds do you believe he is notable?
  2. What made you conclude that SSBCrack and StratPost are reliable sources?
  3. If there are 1-3 independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Arora, what are they?
  4. The source cited in the lead doesn't describe him as "well decorated". Is that your own point of view?
  5. Does capitalizing "Flight Lieutenant" in the text accord with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:MILCAPS)?
  6. Five icons are used in the infobox. How does their use square with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG?

I'm concerned that, in contrast to a neutral editor, your interest in military subjects may make you: accord them more importance, trust sources about military topics more blindly, overstate accomplishments, and emphasize or draw undue attention to certain military aspects. It can be hard for someone with a conflict of interest to see how that conflict affects their editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Peter Southwood and close paraphrasing, again

Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) recently brought buddy breathing through the GA process, which AirshipJungleman29 then brought to DYK. There, reviewer Darth Stabro pointed out a few sentences that showed up on Earwig as verbatim or almost-verbatim copies; Pbsouthwood fixed them, but on re-review, Dclemens1971 found close paraphrasing in another part of the article and asked that it be fixed before promotion. Here, Pbsouthwood turned hostile, saying, Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing? Dclemens then proceeded to highlight sentences that did indeed lift basically their entire structure and cadence, along with a few word choices, right from the source. Pbsouthwood responded that he didn't think it was a problem, but if Dclemens did, he could fix it himself. Dclemens did not take that kind invitation to clean up someone else's mess, and so the nomination was withdrawn by the drive-by nominator shortly before Launchballer would have closed it as stalled.

If that all sounds familiar, it's because Pbsouthwood previously had their autopatrolled rights revoked by Moneytrees in response to pervasive copyright issues in his articles; a desysop was heavily discussed, but it was ultimately decided that he hadn't really had a chance to improve. I will say that even by then, he'd received multiple warnings over the years for closely paraphrasing paragraphs at a time (1 2 3), in response to which he was dismissive towards Sennecaster and the other experienced copyright editors trying to help – which is exactly what happened here as well. Despite that AN thread being two years ago, the relevant contributor copyright investigation is still open, and despite being given that chance to improve, apparently Pbsouthwood's writing has stayed the same. Yes, it's fairly technical and that can make original writing more difficult, but when you've been on notice for that long that you aren't meeting the bar, you should – especially if you're an admin – thoughtfully consider the feedback and improve where possible, even if it's hard. What he's been doing instead is continually making messes in mainspace for others to clean up – which is generally remedied with a mainspace or sitewide block, especially when a CCI is open – and being rude and dismissive towards legitimate feedback, which is more a matter for the community to decide. I'm inclined to issue a block, but I recognize that this would be a serious step and welcome the community's feedback on how these issues should best be remedied. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If somebody's causing chronic and consistent copyright issues, that would ordinarly result in a block, they should be blocked, Admin status be hanged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Before we get into "hanging" anyone, I think we should hear the response to this complaint from Pbsouthwood along with community feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: That's sweet of you, but I think the good ship Hear His Response has already sailed, struck an iceberg, and sunk with all souls lost. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The refusal to fix a problem that has been repeatedly pointed out to him for nearly a decade is astounding. Even if Pbsouthwood genuinely doesn't believe he is putting the project at risk with copyright violations, consensus among other editors has repeatedly been that he is, and he has repeatedly chosen poor responses in these one against many situations. Admins are held to the highest standards of communication and compliance with policy. These standards have not been upheld here. Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Good grief. This sounds pretty awful. Admins, of all people, should not be playing fast and loose with copyrighted material. We are pretty quick to block users for this sort of behavior. @Pbsouthwood: I implore you to please explain why you should not be blocked and/or subjected to a WP:RECALL petition. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies. We need actually actionable dif's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am reluctant to step forward here. Copyvio, including close paraphrasing, is a serious matter. When fixing articles, I often look for possible sources for prose that trips my "maybe copied" sense, and I generally reword it even when I don't find a passage that appears to have been copied or copied with just a few changes. The standard Dclemens1971 applied at Template:Did you know nominations/Buddy breathing in theleekycauldron's "proceeded to highlight sentences" diff above is very high: avoidance of shared terminology and of stating ideas in the same order. It's an almost impossible standard to meet where terminological precision is important or where there's only one standard term for something (Earwig's copyvio detector has to be used sensitively; proper names count towards its percentage scores, as well as terms of art like "submersible pressure gauge"), and where there's only one citeable source or the sequence of exposition matters; when both of these are true, there's little or no space for transformative paraphrasing. I do a lot of extremely brief summarising (often expanded by subsequent editors into something pretty close to the source, or even replaced with an attributed quote in the style of a newspaper report), or I will combine details from multiple sources in my sentence and run the risk of being excoriated for ref-bombing. (And of course especially on recondite topics, radical transformation of the source information can be attacked as synthesis.)
  Pulling an example from each of Dclemens' contrasted passages, I am reluctant to label as over-close paraphrasing these transformations by Pbsouthwood:

1. all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece to twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other
2. Lacking reserve valves or submersible pressure gauges, divers had little idea how much air was actually in their tanks to was an important skill before reserve valves and submersible pressure gauges were generally available
3. made buddy breathing a more complicated technique to complicated the buddy breathing procedure

I hope I'm not being overly lenient, but I wouldn't blink at these; I think they represent a good effort at explaining things without echoing the source text. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I would say that the standard I'm applying isn't quite that high, Yngvadottir. I definitely think it's okay to reuse terms of art if those are standard across the literature; it would be basically impossible to change the words in a term of art without changing the meaning, and it's also usually bad writing (i.e. don't change "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "past a plausible hesitation"). If you're truly citing just one short sentence in a passage, there can be few to no ways to express that idea differently (i.e. there's really only one way to say "Snoofles fetched the stick", "Doe was born on January 1, 1970", "The proposal was never implemented", or "Smith was bit by a rattlesnake"). But reusing colloquial language, reusing sentence structures when more than a few words are being taken, that isn't unavoidable.

To that point, excerpting sentences from Dclemens's examples and focusing solely on those weakens his argument, because the more you cite from a passage, the easier it should be to paraphrase. For the first one, for example, look at the full comparison, and I'll take a whack at rewriting:

Source: This technique has been used since the earliest days of recreational diving, and along with the emergency ascent (originally termed the "blow and go"), it became one of the two ways a diver could respond to running out of air at depth. Back when recreational diving began, all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece.

Article: The procedure has been used since the beginnings of recreational diving, and along with the free ascent, it was one of the standard responses a diver could use if they ran out of air underwater. At that time twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other.

One possible rewrite: Buddy breathing and emergency ascent are both used by divers when their air is running low; the twin-hose regulator, which was standard early on, allowed recreational divers to buddy breathe from the same mouthpiece.

I do recognize that policy can be harder to follow in some areas than others, but plenty of people write on technical subjects without creating these problems, and editors are responsible for meeting policy wherever they write, difficult or not. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As I say, I may be straying over an important line here. I'm pretty confident that my own work can withstand scrutiny for overly close paraphrasing, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility that I suck ... But looking at your attempt at a more radical transformation, I think you've made the point for me by shortening so much that you've omitted that this was the early situation: since the technical change that regulators are no longer dual-hose, buddy breathing is no longer that simple. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

DYK definitely trained me to be pithy :) but I don't think pith is necessary to for originality, I just didn't feel the need to go into more detail than "was standard early on". Anyways, I'll stop taking up all the oxygen (heh) and let other people chime in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Looking at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230831, I see a sea of "Attributed and/or non problematic list content." by Moneytrees in 2023, and an ocean of unactioned claims. I saw one "Small rephrase", which I don't consider damning. What I didn't see was reviewed and multiple instances of improper paraphrasing, so the investigation isn't really evidence of diddley squat. I'm going to reserve judgement, but it seems like there has been a lot of eyes on this and not much action, so I wouldn't be too quick to jump to judgement. I will be honest, I didn't dive into this rabbit hole too deeply, but what I did find looked to be grey area, which can be a problem, particularly when it is an admin who should know better. So I would like to hear from Pbsouthwood before diving in deeper. As I expect admins to be accountable for every action and not just admin actions, I would consider silence the same as an admission of guilt. Hopefully they aren't foolish enough to go back to editing before responding here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  When we find more instances of copyright violations after the CCI is opened, we have to expand the entire CCI with all their edits from the date the case was opened (so over 2 years ago) to now. This is a case with lots of difficult to access sources and requires lots of time for one article; what isn't mentioned here is that a significant portion of the CCI is not completed and that the evidence found to open the CCI is beyond the amount we would normally indef a regular editor for. What also isn't mentioned here is that the ones marked off are all of the easy diffs; they're list of species that are ridiculously difficult to copyvio on, not the more technical articles like the one that triggered this complaint, or Marine construction (relevant listing) which triggered the CCI. The copyright problems listing involved conduct that I believe falls below the standard that we expect admins to be held to, and if I had behaved the same way, I would have been blocked on the spot for IDHT and not getting the point because I wasn't a sysop at the time and didn't have that protection. I understand why none of the non-admins want to work this case if that's the response we're all expecting to receive. That conduct went unacknowledged last time this was brought up (the AP revocation), and I'm not going to be happy to let that slide this time towards the kind folks working DYK. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown, fwiw, there’s more than what meets the eye at the CCI. The articles I’ve checked off so far are ones without copyright-able prose; mostly it is lists of species names, or other unproblematic stuff like reverts/merges etc. In other words, I’m marking down the obviously unproblematic stuff before getting to the actual articles and edits of concern…. Which is a lot. The CCI has seen little work on the thousands of articles with actual prose that PBSouthwood has edited, for a few different reasons. The sources PB has been shown to follow too closely are scholarly works or books not easily accessed online; as discussed above, some of the text is OK overlap wise due to how technical it is, but enough of it is not as to warrant removal; PB makes hundreds of edits to these articles over the course of years, and often copies between his own writing, which means if there’s an issue with one article it’s likely affected others; a good deal of these articles are GAs; and you cannot just run Earwig on these and call it a day, as Earwig cannot read most of the sources PB cites and struggles with finding close paraphrasing, meaning that you need to compare sources with articles manually. So even looking at a relatively smaller edit can take a long time… and people would rather edit “easier” CCIs. In a lot of ways, this is the toughest CCI I’ve ever seen. I’ll try to work on some more concrete stuff in the mean time.

  I otherwise have no opinion yet here; I just want to fix issues and resolve the CCI. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I figured there was more than what meets the eye, but was not expecting so many edits reviewed with no concrete, clear violations. We need concrete examples presented here, without every individual participant having to dig through the CCI, plus we need recent examples, to show it's an ongoing and long term issue. Diffs and links to sources. I don't care that they are an admin, and the standard for action is the same as it is for any other editor. If the report doesn't have actionable diffs, then this is just an academic exercise and will end up getting closed without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Ok, I see a problem, Pbsouthwood. I left a message on their user talk page, making it pretty clear they needed to come here and at least say something before returning to editing. This is a copyright issue, which is one of the few problems on Wikipedia that have potential legal consequences, so I expect any editor to take it serious. In this case, they've made over 20 edits since then. I'm right at the edge of blocking to force the discussion since they appear to be willfully ignoring the discussion, the same as I would any other editor. It's late where I live, but if I see more edits without any meaningful attempt at communicating here, I absolutely WILL block them indefinitely until we sort this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I've made this very clear on their talk page. It is getting near bed time on this part of the planet. We will see what the morning brings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• FAFO. I have indef blocked him until this can get discussed. Administrators have advanced tools, and advanced accountability that comes with it. This is the first time I've had to block an admin, but I'm not going to treat them differently than I would any other editor. After my final warning, they came back and made another edit, at which time I blocked. This block isn't for the CCI issues, it is to limit disruption and potential damage by an administrator with these advanced privileges refusing to be accountable to the community. If they handle this badly, I will file a RECALL petition as well. Any admin is free to modify this block without my prior approval, as the situation warrants. It is definitely bed time, so I'm out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Pbsouthwood has requested an unblock in order to participate in this discussion, which they say they were unaware of until now. 🐢 a frantic turtle 14:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Dennis indicated he was off to bed, so I've unblocked to allow them to engage with these concerns. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have work and final projects to get done and instead I'm doing this. Going through these diffs is incredibly tedious, but I've found 5 that are all still live that have significant issues regarding copyright or verifiability.

• Special:Diff/1325960218, 05:56, 6 December 2025. The first paragraph added, the first and third sentences are a close paraphrase of [8] page 2 column 1. From the same source, we also see borderline SYNTH in the last sentence of the diff (page 4 column 1). The source is nowhere near as negative to qualitative analysis as the article makes it seem.
• Special:Diff/1325856325, 16:18, 5 December 2025. Same source, except I can't find anything in the source that verifies the content except for the usage of BIBS in emergencies.
• Special:Diff/1325817239. 10:00, 5 December 2025. Same source (page 4 column 2), and while individually none of the sentences are close paraphrasing, the list has no objective ordering and maintaining that order in the article is a choice as well.
• Special:Diff/1325147045, 12:04, 1 December 2025. Not all content is verified in https://weldingpros.net/underwater-welding-helmet/.
• Special:Diff/1325138858, 10:25, 1 December 2025. Not all content is verified in https://divelab.com/frequently-asked-questions/, although this is probably the most minor of the diffs presented.

Pbsouthwood can add good paraphrases of very dense sources, but more frequently than I'd like will too closely paraphrase even though there are possible rewrites. Regardless of whether or not keeping the same level of technical language is even appropriate for a lay audience who is reading our articles, I take issue with the verification failure and close paraphrasing still present and the fact that any other non-admin would have been indeffed by now. Just like at the 2023 May 30 listing at Copyright problems, there's an assertion that it was fine because WP:EARWIG said it was fine - I have not opened Earwig once in the last 2 hours it has taken me to review the most recent 150 non-minor mainspace contributions, because none of these sources or the close paraphrasing is even detectable by the tool. Just because this isn't detectable by the tool doesn't mean there is no problem. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing the notifications on my talk page until the block attracted my attention. I am willing to discuss the situation and agree that I am expected to do so, so here I am. I will mention that it is getting late here and my eyes are tired, so I do not expect to engage heavily this evening.

My first comment is that I do nor consider "Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing?" as hostile, nor was it intended as anything other than a straight question. I expressly mentioned that they are ordinary and commonly used expressions in that context because it is quite possible that the others in that discussion were not aware of that. On Wikipedia it is quite ordinary procedure to rephrase what someone else has written, often without even mentioning the intention to do so and I mentioned that I would not object but hoped they would manage to retain the meaning correctly. I have seen good faith copy edits that distorted meaning quite severely. As the Earwig check had reported a low probability of violation, and I agreed with its report, and I made the assumption that the recent GA reviewer also had checked and also did not consider it a problem, I did not see a problem with leaving it and similarly did not and do not have a problem with someone else copy editing it, if that is their preference. I will also mention that most of the apparently problematic terms are standard terms of art in the field, and it would seem weird if they were changed to some arbitrary neologisms or verbose circumscriptions just to avoid using them. The same terms are also used in other places in the article, also because that is the way most divers routinely express those concepts. I will try to deal with this in small chunks to avoid wall of text issues. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of the diffs presented Pbsouthwood, but I think the concern is that you don't really understand the issue. Again you are saying that because Earwig didn't flag it as problematic (and because nobody else spotted it), there wasn't a problem, but if you read Sennecaster's comment directly above yours, you'll see that the concern is that you are introducing close paraphrasing issues that the tool isn't good at detecting. It seems likely that any GA reviewer would have used the tool and come to the same conclusion (especially, perhaps, since the author was an admin and therefore trusted). Using terms of art is fine, but as I read this report, I get the impression that the problem is that you are effectively taking whole paragraphs and rewording them while keeping the same structure and order of information - that's harder to detect, but still plagiarism.

Can I ask how you write articles like this? Are you looking at the sources as you do it? Are you (heaven forbid) copying from the sources, and then rewording the prose? When I write articles (it's been a while, but I do do it), I make notes - what information is contained in a particular source - and then I put the sources away and write my own text from the notes. Ideally I'll have notes from multiple sources, which helps. If you do it that way, it's quite difficult to replicate the structure etc., you are effectively forced to create your own writing. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the advice at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA is very practical and echos your advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It can't be plagiarism because the citation gives credit. Plagiarism, by definition, is passing off others' work as your own without giving credit. Keeping the same structure and order of information is a good thing; to do otherwise risks violating V and NPOV. If a source says "[Idea 1], then [idea 2], and finally [idea 3]," the Wikipedia article should also say "Idea 1, Idea 2, Idea 3." To put it in any other order would be bad, it would violate V and possibly NPOV. Sentence structure is not copyrightable. Neither are ideas. Neither are the order of idea. Not in the context non-fiction (different rules for fiction). Levivich (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested by this perspective Levivich. I understood that plagiarism included inappropriate copying from sources, including when they are cited. If I'm wrong about that, then I'll apologise and retract that. I am concerned about the situation nonetheless: my understanding of our copyright policy is that copying whole paragraphs and then rewording them, but leaving all the same ideas in the same order, is a violation. If I'm wrong about that too then I will apologise, but I don't think I am? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

As with many other words ("Notability" for example), we define plagiarism somewhat differently at Wikipedia than does the Oxford dictionary. The standard here is more strict than the dictionary definition. Unlike the dictionary definition, it is possible to plagiarize even if you cite the claim. Admittedly, it often falls into a grey area where the best solution is rewriting the section but if there is a long term pattern, then it poses a undue burden on the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The violation likely/unlikely text in Earwig should be removed from the tool, it is so prone to both false positives and false negatives, and too many (good faith) editors take its verdict as gospel.

However in this case, an editor who has an open CCI, was told at the opening of that CCI that Earwig is not a reliable tool for detecting close paraphrasing [9], and continues to rely on it anyway should just be indeffed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with creating a new article!

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

---

Hello,

I am a registered Wikipedia user and I created a draft article for “Infinity ECN.” I understand that new articles must comply with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines.

I understand why my previous attempts were blocked and have rewritten a draft to best comply with Wikipedia's policy. My draft is prepared in my sandbox, and I would like to ensure it is properly structured and neutral before submitting it to the main space.

If there are still areas where the article does not comply, I would appreciate guidance on how to restructure it.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Joseph, JosephTheAuthor (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a matter that administrators help with. Please ask your question over at the Teahouse, where there are lots of experienced editors who will be happy to help you. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Editor using account on English language Wikipedia to breach block in other language version

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

---

I want to report disruptive behavior by @Bjornkarateboy.

The editor in question was indefinitely blocked from editing the Icelandic language Wikipedia about half a year ago, due to persistent breaches of conduct and repeated sockpuppetry over the course of about a year. Since then, he has repeatedly attempted to evade his block using more sockpuppet accounts and a host of different IP addresses. He has been indefinitely blocked in several other language versions for similar offenses.

The editor claims he now wants to focus on editing the English language Wikipedia in order to better learn how to edit productively, and potentially have his block lifted eventually.

However, in practice, he has mostly been using his English language account as a tool to evade his block on the Icelandic Wikipedia, and to try influencing its policy discussions in roundabout ways. He has repeatedly left messages on the English talk pages of editors who are administrators on the Icelandic Wiki, pestering them about having been blocked and trying to negotiate for his block to be lifted.

In at least one case, he has used his English Wikipedia Sandbox to draft an article that he later published on the Icelandic language Wikipedia using an anonymous account, effectively using the English language draftspace to intentionally violate a ban in one of its sister Wikis.

In other cases, he has used his English account to solicit advice for edits that he later proceeds to make on the Icelandic Wikipedia in wilful violation of his ban.

A quick look at the editor's contribution history shows that he mainly uses his English language account as a kind of proxy account for the Icelandic language Wikipedia, complaining about his Icelandic language edits being reversed or deleted, and preparing violations of his block on that Wiki.

It's gotten to the point where his continued activities on the English language Wikipedia are, quite frankly, starting to put a strain on the admins on the Icelandic language wiki, who are a small group. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Without considering anything that might be wrong locally (you probably should have highlighted better the crosswiki harassment), probably, the right thing to do is request a global (b)lock at meta:SRG. 3 blocks crosswiki is usually the number to convince the stewards to act and I count 2 indefs and 2 more longterm blocks. Izno (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I already made that request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The steward said no, for now. Regardless of whether a ban is appropriate, it seems pertinent to me that he not be allowed to use his global account, and his English account in particular, as a springboard to continue his constant vandalism on the Icelandic Wiki. TKSnaevarr (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I’ve now globally blocked the account. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 05:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

ChronoEditor1 repeated use of LLM in talk pages, FORUM-y, legal threats?

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

---

First warning here

Use of LLM again, using talk page as a forum here

Use of LLM yet again, using talk page as a forum here Use of LLM yet again, this time with threats to "write an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO" here

Finally, FORUM-y post on talk page, maybe a bit of WP:ICHY here

If this is the wrong venue, please tell me about it, thank you. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! The best venue for that would be WP:AN/I. Once you move it there, you should also leave the user a talk page notification with {{ANI-notice}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

sorry @Chaotic Enby, but how do i change venue? do i just copy and paste the thread? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-30597-01 Yes, I think so. Toadspike [Talk] 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I've copy pasted the AN thread to ANI, please close this thread. thank you! ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User Names(s) with format "~2025-XXXXX-XX"

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

---

I am find a lot of users with a name starting as ~2025-*. Each one of them them have edits on just a few pages, but there are many of them. I suspect these are all sock puppets, and these names are created on the fly based on some time stamps. All of them seem to me to be WP:BE instances. I searched the archive, but I am not sure this has been reported yet.

• ~2025-35382-88 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-39141-70 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-38759-13 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-39145-12 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-37614-79 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-39130-02 (talk · contribs)
• and others...

Do admins have some suggestions?

Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)