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)

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
367	368	369	370	371	372	373	374	375	376
Incidents (archives, search)
1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194	1195	1196	1197	1198
1199	1200	1201	1202	1203	1204	1205	1206	1207	1208
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
493	494	495	496	497	498	499	500	501	502
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	2	87	89
TfD	3	33	36
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	9	9
RfD	0	46	46
AfD	0	1	1

Request for review: I denied TAIV access

No consensus to overturn the denial. I count 3 users (Rsjaffe, Toadspike, Voorts) in favor of endorsing the denial and 4 users (Femke, zzuuzz, Tamzin, EggRoll97) in favor of granting rights. I don't think there's much more to say on this matter - TAIV is a relatively new right that doesn't have the sort of entrenched norms that would allow me to make a strong "strength of arguments" case that would wedge this deadlock in one direction; the guideline itself says nothing more than Admins are permitted to decline applicants who meet these criteria but are otherwise unsuitable for access to this tool with no hypotheticals on why that would be. While others may have done things differently, the level of disagreement here clearly shows that no abuse of discretion has occurred. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a request for review of my denial of FMSky's request for TAIV access. In March-April of this year, @FMSky had two arbitration enforcement sanctions. One, a two-week pblock for personal attacks and disruption, and 2, topic ban from CT/GG. Based on the ongoing topic ban, I denied his request. FMSky felt that was not a sufficient reason for denial. I opened up the discussion for more opinions, and @Femke weighed in with a different, but not definitive, opinion. Femke noted that we're all still figuring it out here, which I thoroughly agree with, and would like to hear opinions from other administrators, either here or at the original request. As I stated in response to FMSky, any admin is welcome to reverse my decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it would be just nice to have to revert genre warriors popping up all over album articles etc, otherwise Binksternet would have to do all the work lmao FMSky (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @rsjaffe. Both the recent pblock and the topic ban are independently disqualifying in my view. Unlike other userrights, this one requires a high degree of trust per the WMF's policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that an editor needs to show enough competence to be able to read the instructions, and no pattern of something that indicates they might ignore the rules like harassment or outing. A topic ban in itself doesn't indicate they would break the rules at vandalism fighting, given that vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions compared to contentious topics. There's some personal attacks involved in the two sanctions, which gives me a bit more pause. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think we should be leaving it to admin discretion with regard to active sanctions, since admins can reasonably disagree as to what sanctions are or are not disqualifying. I think we have some discretion with regard to expired sanctions. For example, in my view the recent block for personal attacks is disqualifying, but if that had happened three years ago, it probably wouldn't be. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin commentAs a Wikipedian since 2007, I disagree that "vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions." I would hope that hitting rollback on the addition of "ksajdhgkoasdh" to a benign article like glass or telephone would not evoke strong emotion in a Wikipedian, but it could evoke stronger emotion if one sees some moron write "Black Politician A is a retarded sodomite who rapes female Muslim Politician B in the butt inside a Jewish synagogue which is across the street from the Holy Mother Mary Catholic Church while screaming Daddy Martin Luther King at the top of her lungs to get bills about abortion passed" on an article, let alone when vandals respond to vandal fighters directly with "your mom" insults, death threats, racist/sexist/Xphobic/otherwise discriminatory garbage, and doxing. Sometimes the vandalism itself is contentious, other times the vandalism may be benign but the subject they're desecrating can be contentious, and it takes thick skin to take some of it with a grain of salt. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation policy for reference [1]. It does not mention 'high degree of trust', and I've treated somewhat similar to pending changes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't say that, but I think that it is since it requires editors to keep certain information confidential. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to grant the TAIV. I see no indication that it's likely to be abused, plus they have a record of AIV reports and so on. I think perhaps some input from the previously involved admins would give an opportunity to raise any concerns that I've missed, but I don't see a topic ban as disqualifying per se. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) If TAIV was used to reveal the IP of an editor based on edits they've made in the CT/GG space, would that be a topic ban violation? It's not technically an edit as described at WP:TBAN. But if it would be a violation then it'd be very hard to check or enforce since only CUs have TAIV log access. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBANs are broadly construed, so yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should mostly be used when dealing with vandalism which is WP:BANEXEMPT so it's not so cut and dry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BANEXEMPT has exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism or blpvios, reverts can be performed without using TAIV even if deeper investigations cannot. It also specifies that obvious means cases in which no reasonable person could disagree, and I believe that reasonable people can disagree with a topic banned editor accessing non-public account information in the space they are topic banned from.

I think it should be considered a TBAN violation, in which case monitoring and enforcement is an issue worth considering before granting the permission. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that would be a TBAN violation. Obvious vandalism is obvious in and of itself, without further investigation. So any potential vandalism requiring investigation using TAIV would not be covered by WP:BANEXEMPT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify why the investigation touching a banned topic would violate the ban, it is the actions a banned person would take based upon the investigation that would violate the ban. For example, the person may want to delete more, non-obvious, vandalism by a linked account, or the person may want to make a report at AIV pointing out the issue with the IP or with the linked accounts. I can not think of any actions based on investigation of a banned topic using TAIV that would not violate the ban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Throughout the discussion that occurred which established the minimum baseline, a large amount of those participating expressed a desire for the absolute minimum requirements, with some expressing demonstrated need, and some expressing admin discretion to decline. The request ultimately seems to meet both the minimum baseline and a demonstrated need, so the only missing requirement here would be admin discretion. A TBAN in and of itself doesn't necessarily consist of a reason to lack trust in other areas. Hell, we've had administrators with active TBANs, and they still were pretty trustworthy as admins. Also noteworthy is that the topic ban is from early April, with a quick warning a few days later which resolved amicably, but otherwise no further issues noted in the enforcement log. I fail to see how this constitutes a lack of trust. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imposed the pblock in question and was part of the consensus that led to the TBAN, which I subsequently issued a warning for violating. I don't see anything in that chain of events that precludes FMSky from being granted TAIV, which per Eggroll and contra Voorts is something that the WMF has not indicated is a highly trusted role and the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of. FMSky meets the criteria under WP:TAIVGRANT, and while that section gives admins discretion to deny, I don't see any reason that that discretion should be exercised here. The disruption that led to the pblock, TBAN, and warning is wholly unrelated to the kind of misconduct we're worried about with TAIV; I could see declining if it was within the past month or two on the basis that the editor can't be trusted to follow policy, but we have 7 months of evidence that FMSky can follow his ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of [TAIV]" – I don't think this is an accurate description of the situation. The RfC in question explicitly gave admins discretion in granting and required a "demonstrated need", both of which go beyond the absolute minimum set by the WMF. The close additionally says: There is clear and substantial consensus that admins have the discretion to decline the right even if the requirements are met (emphasis in original). As such, I endorse Rsjaffe declining to grant TAIV in this case. (This does not mean that another admin would have been wrong to grant TAIV when confronted with the same situation.) Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this from the archive since this probably should be closed by an uninvolved admin, as there is a request for action either in favor of the declination of granting, or in favor of granting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appeal from topic ban

Topic ban appeal successful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi everyone. I'd like to request a review of my ban on Armenia/Azerbaijan topic (discussion).

Since the ban was placed, I have followed it completely. I focused on other parts of Wikimedia and stayed active on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. My editing there has been stable and productive, and I did not touch the banned topic on English Wikipedia. I understand why the ban was given. Even if I did not agree with every part of the original concerns, I can see why the situation looked suspicious at that time. During these months, I have been careful not to repeat anything that could create the same problems again.

I'm asking for the topic ban to be lifted so that I can work in this area again, especially on historical and cultural subjects where I can contribute high-quality and well-sourced content. I'm not interested in getting involved in unproductive disputes or the kinds of arguments that made this topic contentious in the first place. If a discussion starts heading in that direction, I will step away rather than escalate it. Nemoralis (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support (full disclosure, i have previously talked to Nemoralis off-wiki about Armenia-Azerbaijan politics, although it's been awhile): Nemoralis is a valuable contributor in one of the most intractably miserable topic areas on enwiki. due to the obscurity of the issue among Anglophones, having editors who can read/write in Armenian or Azeri and don't seek to push nationalist POVs is extremely useful. it's been almost a year since the topic ban was imposed, and i do not see it being necessary to prevent disruption. i would also point to Nemoralis' work on azwiki, where he has done important work on neutrality and better coverage of Armenian issues, such as creating an azwiki article about Armenian genocide denial. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support. Nemoralis has complied with their topic ban and edited constructively for a significant period of time. Given that and their statement that they understand why the topic ban was implemented and their assurance that they will step away if it gets too heated rather than escalate I am happy to support the removal of the topic ban.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a clear statement of how they will contribute positively in the contentious topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nemoralis was part of a meatpuppet group that did proxy editing for its blocked members, as confirmed by a block review confirming plenty of CU and technical evidence that this group edited much of the same articles in the same topic areas. Nemoralis's appeal does not acknowledge previous meatpuppet and proxy editing. This also means, by not fully admitting to the previous behaviour, it does not explain how Nemoralis will not continue to proxy edit in this same topic if unbanned. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TBF That was two years ago and the block was one year ago - do you think they're playing an incredibly long game?

I'd have expected a bad actor to have given up long before this, but then again I've got my AGF glasses on & maybe that's something that does actually happen...

There's also quite a complex explanation in their accepted unblock request about what happened and why, does that not address your concerns? Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something that doesn't sit right with me is that one of the users (Solavirum, now known as ChanisCaucasi) that Nemoralis was proxy editing for has implied that Aliyev's authoritarian regime is keeping an eye on Azerbaijani Wikipedians and even repressing them in a Meta thread related to Nemoralis' block [2]. I recall there being another time when they talked about this here, think it was in a AN/ANI thread, can't find it anymore. There was even a post in Wiki news about the Aliyev regime reaching for Wikipedia [3]. A regime that is notable for being authoritarian, suppressing freedom of press, and engaging in historical falsifications. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i admit i'm confused as to why Solavirum's comment about the Azerbaijani government is problematic for Nemoralis' topic ban appeal. i see nothing objectionable in that Meta thread from Solavirum, it's just honest about the risks that Azerbaijani editors face. certainly concerning in a general sense, but is there something i'm missing? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I don't know how to write this without sounding like an arse, and probably should have thought more about it initially. My bad. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no worries! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have not proxy edited for anyone and I will not do so. As I mentioned before, I didn't realize that my behavior at that time could be misunderstood. Also, the thread on MetaWiki has nothing to do with me. I don't understand what they have to do with this at all. Nemoralis (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... you literally did proxy edit as the block review showed abundant evidence of. How can you say that you understand why the ban was given while also denying proxy editing? It is hard to believe you will not repeat the same problems if you cannot even admit what they are. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing this topic ban. Nemoralis should be judged on his own merits, and as far as I can see his contributions here and elsewhere have been solid. Toadspike [Talk] 07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support - it's been a while since that block review linked above, and HistoryofIran has sort of backed off their initial comments. Nemoralis seems to understand what the issues were that led to the topic ban and has undertaken to stay away from them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

How do I get sanctions lifted?

No consensus to lift the restrictions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some years ago restrictions were imposed on me regarding new article creations and Articles for Deletion discussion participation. How do I go about requesting they be lifted? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy weighing in here not as an admin but as a fellow editor who enjoys working alongside you on the underrepresented pieces of English wikipedia.

I think a successful request would include how you've improved your research and writing, and other ways you've addressed the concerns that were raised that led to the sanctions. It will probably be helpful too to include the link(s) that led to the sanctions so that uninvolved editors or those of us who have forgotten can review. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Bushranger thanks for the link. I have read through the linked section and the section it links to "above" and I have absolutely no idea what it is you'd like me to do to request my restriction be lifted. Can you please clarify for me? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FloridaArmy, it's just the paragraph immediately above it, one line up.

WP:GAB is for blocks but still has good advice on how to compose your appeal. You can also see the same instructions about halfway down the page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several years since the imposition of restrictions on me for making a lot of good faith additions of new entries on notable subjects and participation at Articles for Deletion. I've been working up new subjects in draftspace and will continue to do so before introducing them into mainspace. I understand that the community evolved to expect substantial content and sourcing for new subjects and that very short starts of subjects in mainspace, even if the subject is notable, are no longer allowed. I understand new article subjects with very limited content aren't considered acceptable. I will limit my comments at Articles for Deletion to avoid extended back and forths and simply lay out the sources and reasoning why a subject meets inclusion criteria or the lack thereof that makes the subject fall short in my opinion. Thanks for your kind consideration. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links for convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#FloridaArmy_and_AfC_woes FA limited to 20 drafts at AfC, June 2020. FA, was there another that addressed AfD? Star Mississippi 03:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984 § CIR problems? for the thread that led to the AfD restriction. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a (very!) quick look through user Talk - over the past two weeks we have two accepted AFC drafts, seven rejects and two speedy delete nominations (only nominated, not actioned). The most common reason for AFC rejection is sourcing/notability. I've not counted the notifications for old articles because that's most of the Talk page.

If anyone wants the pure figures then here's a link: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/FloridaArmy. There are no deleted pages until item #87 and a deletion rate of 0.8% overall. Roughly 3 out of 5 are Stub-class, around 1.5 out of 5 are Start-class.
Honestly, this might be useless info but I found it interesting & figured I may as well write it down on the off-chance that is actually helpful for someone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue-Sonnet I don't think those speedies were correctly tagged (misclick, not deliberate human action). From the history with edits to reset G13, I don't think they were true G2s and nothing in article or @FloridaArmy's editing history indicates any tests. I'll drop a note on @Liz's talk since I mentioned her here, but 99% sure those two shouldn't be held against FA. Love the data you pulled. Star Mississippi 13:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! They didn't look right to me so I thought I'd better add that little disclaimer.

Here are the last ten reviewed articles, these should make it a bit easier for everyone to assess the appeal (accepted articles are in italics):
Draft:Samuel W. Chubbuck - single sentence article, moved to draft by another editor after being created in mainspace

Draft:Melvin Redmond - declined for notability (sigcov)

Draft:Julian La Mothe - one paragraph with filmography list. Declined due to lack of context.

Henry Carey Baird - accepted

Draft:Patricia Li - declined for notability (sigcov)

Draft:I. N. Moore - declined for notability (sigcov), unfinished (too short/written like a list)

Draft:Robert J. Guidry - declined twice for notability (sigcov)

Draft:E. O. Rothra - declined twice for notability (sigcov), also see CMD's analysis

Draft:Open University of Sudan - declined due to LLM signs (no specifics given but there are some phrases that AI likes to use in there)

Al-Mazmum - accepted

Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that the Open University of Sudan draft wasn't created or heavily edited by FloridaArmy (who only made very small edits to it) before they submitted it. I don't think FloridaArmy used any LLMs in that article. I don't know if they use LLMs or not but I figure from a very quick skim and what I vaguely remember it's way more likely they don't. Sorry if I haven't signed in (this is a temporary account), hoping it'll automatically sign my post. ~2025-35897-41 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep the LLM part isn't really explained - I included it since the person submitting the article is confirming that they feel the draft meets the criteria for inclusion as a full article, ergo they've checked and verified that it's ready to be included in mainspace. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to miss that the issue was not just about length, but about the amount of cleanup needed on what was there. Looking at Draft:E. O. Rothra, it was submitted to AfC while still having editing notes, and bare urls are still being used (some were caught by citationbot). CMD (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose lifting these restrictions in part due to FloridaArmy's behavior with Luther Palmer House where I have most interacted with them. I brough it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendleton Hill due to lacking notability; it was closed as redirect. After the close, FloridaArmy left a rather odd message on my talkpage. They then moved the redirected article to draftspace and submitted it to AfC almost unchanged from the version that was redirected. Despite the unchanged prose, they submitted it with a new title - that of a (likely notable) house that is scarcely mentioned in the prose. The article, which I believe should have not been accepted at AfC, has basic citation issues including bare URLs, incorrect parameters, and non-RS that I specifically pointed out in the DR.

In the drafts linked above by BlueSonnet, I don't see any indication that FloridaArmy has improved their editing in any way. One of the drafts was created in mainspace in violation of their editing restriction; they already have two blocks for previous violations. Of the two accepted drafts, Henry Carey Baird has numerous incomplete or improperly formatted references, and Al-Mazmum needed significant cleanup by the AfC reviewer. These are issues I would expect to see with newer editors, not someone with 200,000 edits over 9 years who knows that asking for a lifting of restrictions will put scrutiny on their recent edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I tagged a draft as a CSD G2, that shouldn't be held against FA. Consider that an oversight on my part. I look at hundreds of expiring drafts on a daily basis and sometimes drafts get mistagged. It's more likely my fault than FAs. I do see a lot of incomplete drafts they've created but G13 deletion is often postponed for several very prolific editors and FA is one of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unban request from Elijah Wilder

UNBANNED

consensus to unban. asilvering (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support unblock with a one account restriction. Toadspike [Talk] 06:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
A link to Asivering's CU comment. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Ban appeal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Rudzani Mudau

Page deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rudzani Mudau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's page seems to be some sort of scam, someone might be trying to pass the user page as a legitimate article. Of the 4 contributions outside of user-space, two of them are also spam.

This doesn't fit neatly at AIV or UAA, and I probably could have filed a G11, but I wasn't sure that was it. This user isn't actively vandalizing mainspace, but they seem to be here to run some sort of scam, and not build an encyclopedia. Unless it's all an elaborate joke that I'm not getting. Mlkj (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards "joke" over "scam". Regardless, I've deleted the userpage under U7 and G3 (hoax). Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, whoops, U7 doesn't apply (not 6 months old)...the other one still should though. Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate the 2nd opinion. Incidentally I think U7 doesn't apply to top-level user-pages anyways, but G3 is a good fit, I'll remember G3 for next time. Mlkj (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

My local ipblockexempt userright is not needed anymore

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

The IP range block that affects me was recently made global across all projects, so I now have a global exemption for it. Therefore I no longer need it locally here on en-wp and request it removed. Rose Abrams (T C L) 14:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GIPBE only exempts you from global IP blocks, not local ones. Are you sure that you don't need it here locally? Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I didn't know, thanks for clarifying. Okay, in that case I will keep it until the local block expires in April. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rose Abrams Your local IP block exemption expires on 22 February 2026. If the local block expires in April, would you like me to extend your IPBE to the end of April? Toadspike [Talk] 15:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, yes🙂 Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit or Revert

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cinaroot is open. Let's not have parallel discussions beyond the extant one at the Talk. If for some reason AE doesn't take this on, this can be reopened. Star Mississippi 02:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this edit considered as a revert ? [4] I moved some content into a new section and deleted 3 sentences.

ie. i created `Public opinion in Israel and abroad` and moved contents from Denial sections there - and deleted denial section headers

The edit is not disputed and still stands on the page.

Original discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cinaroot Cinaroot (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It's hard to tell given that that edit is more than a week old; but considering that article's talk page, it seems that WP:DRN would be a better venue for all of this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk-page discussion is about whether to include it in the first para of lead, and if so, how it should be presented there. My edit concerns the body of the article. I felt that having a dedicated section was undue, so I created a new section and relocated the content there. Its not disputed rn - im just asking as some editors is saying its a revert. But i disgaree Cinaroot (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that there is currently an arbitration enforcement request open against the OP concerning this edit and a possible violation of WP:1RR. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report of user @ChildrenWillListen

WP:BOOMERANG

RFKTNG blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user @ChildrenWillListen has falsely accused me of writing a Wikipedia page with an LLM. I have tried to discuss this with him via replacing references, but he has tagged the page for speedy deletion twice. I feel this is unacceptable behaviour which is why I am bringing it up. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain where the titles for the references added here came from? CMD (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:ChildrenWillListen § It appears you have made a mistake. and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molems. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, they did admit to using an LLM and being Molems: [5]. Perhaps this report can be closed? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following this in detail but, on a quick glance, I am confused. If the SPI concluded that they were the same person then why was no action taken? It seems that we have both sockpuppetry and disruption here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DE is DE regardless of whether they need to be blocked as a sock. I have INDEFfed RFKTNG and leave the master to our better paid ;-) CU friends. Star Mississippi 15:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: They self-admitted they're a sock, and have said they won't use AI or sock again. I say we give them a chance. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope they do better - their last edit before being blocked was to blank their draft, they've also been giving themselves trouts and barnstars before being found out.

Fingers crossed! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet @ChildrenWillListen I hope so. Molems remains unblocked for their (hopefully) productive use. Star Mississippi 17:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect from protected page

Redirect created as requested. No further action needed. Star Mississippi 15:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I repeat my request: Template:Il ("Indigo Lima") is salted; please will someone make it a redirect to Template:Interwiki link, which I have recently created?

If this isn't the right place to ask; please advise me where to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing A slightly more appropriate venue would be RfPP, which has sections both for edit requests and for requesting unprotection. I'm guessing nobody took action last time because templates are scary. I've now created the redirect, please let me know if I did it correctly. Toadspike [Talk] 12:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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!)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Allowing use of AE for community topicwide restrictions

As required by Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions, I am notifying AN of this new RFC on allowing the use of AE for community topicwide restrictions: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Allowing_use_of_AE_for_community_topicwide_restrictions. You are invited to participate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft on a user page

Not an issue for WP:AN. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It looks like user @Ivanhardybirt has a draft of an article in their user page. That's the wrong place, correct? I found that user page while I was perusing ANI for fun (really!). (The user was mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205 from late October.) David10244 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be wrong? I draft articles in user space all the time. wound theology ◈ 11:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERPAGEDRAFT suggests that userspace drafts should always be in subpages rather than the main user page, but I don't know that this is really an issue that we need an AN thread about; just ask Ivan to create such a subpage. (@David10244:, as the edit notice to this page says when you start a discussion about a user, pinging them is not enough; you need to notify them on their talkpage) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

What's going on with Dschor's sockpuppetry block?

ARCHEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION COMPLETED

Old, old, old templating error not relevant to anything current. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed that User:Dschor states that @Dschor was blocked because they were a sockpuppet of @Dschor; certainly this can't be correct, because you cannot be a sockpuppet of your own username.

Could an admin please step in and clarify the situation? GrinningIodize (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this log explains it—although it's more of a forest than a log. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked twenty years ago. How did you even find this page? -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rabbithole. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin here. Someone used the wrong template (Special:Diff/319386280) back in 2009, three years after the indefinite block. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd:386 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is the master, then. Secretlondon (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Request for Review of Deleted Contributions

No content of yours was deleted from ANI. The content was collapsed per WP:AITALK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Fixed as requested. Star Mississippi 03:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

Fixed per request Star Mississippi 13:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report of user @Phoenixxfeather Rusalkii (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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...

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BLP problems

INDEFFED

Lhotserunner indeffed by Sennecaster; BLP policy is not just there for decoration. Rusalkii (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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"

Duplicate complaint of the one on WP:ANI. Schazjmd (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

User:LAyub12

Taken care of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LAyub12. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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?

[8]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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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. Schwede 66 23:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Master Editor user breaking guidelines

OP punted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

TMNT

THAT ESCALATED QUICKLY

Hollowdame melted down over their 24h edit-warring block, and is now indefinitely checkuser-blocked as a sockpuppet with TPA and email revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

I've left a comment. WP:COIN would be the better place to go next time. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

ANI case needs action

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 [10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

user:162 etc. removing move request for no reason

WP:BOOMERANG

Blocked by Izno, whose boomerang didn't come back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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 [11] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

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)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards