Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive373

Request to create restricted talk page related to WP:BFDI

I would like to request Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island to be created, either as a full-fledged talk page or as a redirect to WT:BFDI, for to be able to specifically discuss about the source assessements (if as a full-fledged talk page), or to clearly indicate that BFDI-related source assessements belong in WT:BFDI, where they likely have always been on (example) if created as a redirect. SquaredHexahedron (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I've created it blank. Redirect it or flesh it out as you will. —Cryptic 03:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Admin Recall Petition for Night Gyr Passed

The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Night_Gyr for User:Night Gyr to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfa or participation in an administrator election is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator_recall. Useight (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Best range to block ip adding Asad Ullah to pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=31.215.98.105/17&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 catches at least one innocent person. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: 31.215.98.105 belongs to ASN5384, and its BGP prefix is actually 31.215.64.0/18 (not /17, which is more broad). If the vandalism is specifically that same format, you could also/alternatively consider an editfilter. --slakr^\ talk / 19:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Something is going on in Undefined

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

---

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

User:BIMA FF1 is somehow reverting all our reverts at Undefined the moment after we revert a page blanking. Can someone just... Do something about it? Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 11:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. A CheckUser might want to see if this matches any of the LTAs known to do scripted attacks, as this could be a harbinger of something more disruptive if so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW, that page history is now wrecked for the last 500 revisions, and it would have been essentially harmless to just let the blanking stand for a few minutes while awaiting an admin. Those who reverted should check out Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you perform a selective revision move? JayCubby 11:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I've done that - burying all of the vandal/spam/misplaced edits (many of which weren't caused by this bot attack but other unrelated vandals or software bugs) and leaving the history there just showing the constructive development of the disambiguation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. JayCubby 18:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

No bueno. This is a regular vandalbot LTA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems part of the same campaign as discussed further up the page at #Sockpuppetry at Wiki. Accounts come in sets (this one was -FF to -FF4), all registered on May 30. I blocked the others as socks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

User Report: Gogo Pasha

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

---

Gogo Pasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Retro (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Good Bad Ugly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I’d like to report concerns regarding Gogo Pasha due to repeated violations of community guidelines:

Inappropriate language: The user used vulgar and regionally offensive language in an edit summary — specifically, “See discussion on talk page My p**da mavne” (full version visible in logs). This is a clear breach of civility standards.

Disruptive editing: On pages like Retro and Good Bad Ugly, they have repeatedly added unreliable or non-verifiable sources. These edits were reverted, but the user continued to reinsert them without consensus or explanation.

I have previously addressed this concern on the user's talk page and attempted to engage with the user to explain the issue, but the same problematic sources continue to be added. At this point, I believe further guidance from an administrator may be helpful in resolving the situation constructively. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• On Good Bad Ugly there has been an edit war going on for days, but nobody has edited the talk page since May. I have blocked several of the accounts involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I've also blocked Tonyy Starkk and Gogo Pasha from Retro (film), where they were also edit warring. There is active discussion on that article's talk page, but neither of these two have participated in it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector based on the discussion at [1], there was some consensus on using reliable sources as outlined in WP:ICTFSOURCES, and I made edits accordingly. That said, I acknowledge that I should have discussed further before making those changes. I’ll be sure to engage in discussion first going forward. Thanks. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Gogo Pasha (talk · contribs) also has been editing logged out in a way which violates the sockpuppetry policy, and has made far worse personal attacks while logged out. They are now blocked sitewide indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

And unrelated to anyone else here but  Confirmed to each other:

• Hatimm Tai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kanakasa08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They also have been editing logged out. Blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

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

• July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 - 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/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again 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 will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. 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 must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. 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) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a comment, which maybe is more relevant to a subsequent RFC about the next round of administrator election. I would suggest that the Discussion phase be renamed the Questions phase. The instructions to keep discussion neutral mean that there is relatively little discussion, because most of the comments that can reasonably be made will be either positive or negative. I understand that the discussion is to be neutral so that this is not a drama like a traditional RFA. However, most of the work of this phase is the questions by editors and answers by candidates, which are extremely useful. Keep the rule, but rename the phsse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

So, that's weird...

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

---

Hmmm...

...is anyone else seeing the difference in the closure boxes' size on here (bottom) vs. on ANI/how it should be (top)? The bizzare thing is when I edit a section and hit 'preview', the closure box shows the correct size! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Having looked in the history, it starts doing that in this diff. All diffs prior to it have the closure description boxes in the "correct" size. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

And if I hit 'undo' on that bot archiving edit and then preview, they show correct. Previewing the entire page here, as it is, shows the "broad" boxes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Aha. Apparently it was something to do with this closure using a non-standard box as the first closed section on the page that was causing it, replacing the coding wiith the standard {{atop}}/{{abot}} fixed it. Very weird. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 23–29 – Voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote 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 vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. 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) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Appeal regarding my topic ban from Aristides de Sousa Mendes and related topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The appeal is closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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

---

Earlier this year, a group of newly created, single purpose accounts began editing the Aristides de Sousa Mendes article in a strikingly coordinated manner. These accounts — Benji1207,Cocoa57, Joséángel006, Cornedebouc, Lynngol — focused almost exclusively on this single article, displaying highly similar editing behaviors and arguments. I flagged these activities and triggered an investigation; four of these 5 accounts were subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry. This was not the first time sockpuppets tried to reshape this article toward a hagiographic portrayal of Sousa Mendes. In 2014, a user initially named "Sousa Mendes Foundation" renamed himself Redmoon660 and orchestrated at least two additional sockpuppets — Coimbralove, Beebop211. This pattern was documented in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmoon660/Archive. The vocabulary and argumentative strategies used in 2014 and again in 2025 are remarkably similar. That resemblance allowed me to detect and report the pattern.

Now in April 2025, in the middle of civil discussions I was having with these sockpuppet accounts, another editor — 100.36.106.199 — made four rapid repetitive deletions of sourced content from the article Sousa Mendes, without using the Talk page. [2], [3], [4], [5]. While such behavior is considered disruptive edit warring under Wikipedia guidelines, no warning or sanction was issued in this case. Thinking this was an IP engaging in disruptive editing, I requested article's page protection. But the editor 100.36.106.199, in turn, filed a complaint against me, which resulted in my topic ban.

The administrator who ultimately "enforced" my topic ban, Cullen328, is someone I respect and with an impeccable track record. We had previously interacted in 2014 regarding this same article. At the time, he reviewed my edits and explicitly told me: "After your explanation and careful consideration, I decided to let your edit stand." This was the last time I heard from Cullen328. I received no further warning or criticism from him for over a decade. However, 10 year later, out of the blue, he returned and imposed a topic ban on me, stating that I had devoted twelve years to damaging Sousa Mendes’s reputation and improving Salazar’s. He also admitted in the past that he had no expertise in Portuguese history and lacked time to analyze the article in full (sic). I believe that, despite his good faith, Cullen328 made an unfair and prejudiced decision. In addition since the ban, he has shown no interest in the article’s quality, even as over 20,000 characters of reliably sourced content were removed, and the bibliography was completely canceled.

I have waited two months before submitting this appeal, intentionally choosing to avoid emotional disputes or rushed reactions. I believed that a period of reflection would allow for a more balanced assessment of the situation. I also wanted to observe how the editors who supported my topic ban would continue to interact with the article on Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Their subsequent actions — including mass deletions of well-sourced academic material and the near-total reversion to a hagiographic narrative — confirmed my concerns and reinforced the importance of this appeal.

Consequences of my ban

The effects of my topic ban are visible. The Aristides de Sousa Mendes article has reverted to a hagiographic version that resembles its state before 2013, heavily influenced by previously confirmed blocked sockpuppet accounts. The current version top contributors by character count are:

• 1) Beebop211 (30.9%) – blocked in 2013
• 2) Lynngol (13.9%) – likely a sock puppet.
• 4) Coimbralove (7.6%) – blocked in 2013
• 6) Redmoon660 (3.5%) – blocked in 2013
• 7) Cocoa57 (2.1%) – blocked in 2025

Following my removal, these editors' contributions dominate the current version of the article. Numerous academic and primary sources were deleted from the bibliography and footnotes. Examples of what was removed include:

• 1) Sousa Mendes’s salary and official diplomatic status: Primary records from the Portuguese Ministry of Finance and secondary academic sources confirm that Sousa Mendes remained on the diplomatic payroll until his death, that contradict the hagiographic version that Sousa Mendes was punished by Salazar and died in poverty.
• 2) Otto von Habsburg’s visa and many other Visas: The article now implies, again, that Sousa Mendes acted alone in saving Otto von Habsburg, when in fact telegrams from Salazar to Sousa Mendes ordered the visa to be issued. This action was not defiance, but compliance.

3) etc... I could include a long list, but I think this two points serve the purpose of illustrating the point.

Academic consensus and historiographical nuance

My intention has always been to improve Wikipedia in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, adding scholarly nuance to the article. The topic of Aristides de Sousa Mendes is far more complex than the heroic legend promoted by advocacy groups. This is not my personal opinion; it is the position of multiple academic authorities that has been removed from the article:

Historian Thomas Gerard Gallagher says:

According to the legend that has built up around him [Sousa Mendes], he defied an authoritarian regime and tirelessly issued visas enabling thousands of people, including many Jews, to escape the Nazi clutches... In reality, this coda to Portugal’s wartime story is rather more complicated… Sousa Mendes was never actually expelled from the foreign service. However, a foundation instrumental in keeping alive his memory claims he was 'stripped of his diplomatic position and forbidden from earning a living.' It seems that ill health prevented him from returning to diplomatic work, and he figured on the roll of diplomatic staff up to his death. This makes sense since he was paid a full salary by the state until the end of his life. One of his most sympathetic biographers, Rui Afonso, has reckoned that he continued to receive a salary at least three times that of a teacher

— Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die

Costa Leite emphasizes that:

It is a temptation to reduce complex phenomena to stereotypes... The stereotype of dictatorship suggests that in the context of World War II, a dictator is on the side of the Axis pursuing an anti-Semitic policy. In practice, however, such a stereotype ignores national cultures, geopolitical alignments, and the origin and evolution of political regimes. Portuguese neutrality, however, was also important because it opened the way for many people to escape annihilation... The Portuguese Jewish community was very small but it counted very influential members, among them a personal friend of Salazar, Moses Bensabat Amzalak.

— Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II

Historian Lina Maria Madeira, whose doctoral dissertation focuses on Sousa Mendes and the Portuguese foreign service, notes:

[On Sousa Mendes] We often read truly emotionally charged pages... The characters are presented as incarnations of good on one side and evil on the other. This approach has always seemed not only untruthful but also impoverishing. Because in historiography, as in life, truth — if it exists — is not the exclusive attribute of one side. It lies somewhere in between, in a space that is not always clearly defined and full of nuances.

— O mecanismo de (des)promoções do MNE : o caso paradigmático de Aristides de Sousa Mendes

Historian Diogo Ramada Curto, Director of the Portuguese National Library, writes:

Regarding the myth-making operations surrounding Aristides de Sousa Mendes as an opponent of Salazar, the opinions of ambassadors Carlos Fernandes and João Hall Themido cannot be ignored. The latter emphasized that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was well aware of the abnormal flow of refugees at the border, caused by the issuance of visas — a number that the most unrealistic estimates raised to as high as 30,000....The myth of Aristides as an opponent of Salazar, capable of acting individually and in isolation, is a later invention that rigorous historical analysis does not confirm.

— Diogo Ramada Curto, O desconhecido Veiga Simões, Expresso, 5 November 2017 [[6]]

Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram states:

There is little in common between [Sousa Mendes and Raoul Wallenberg]... Public tributes and biographies sometimes amplify Sousa Mendes’s legacy well beyond what is supported by the historical documentation.

Historian Neill Lochery similarly concludes that:

"It would be more prudent, if a little cynical, to regard Sousa Mendes as a 'Wallenberg Lite.'"

Final remarks

• 1) Cullen328, my main accuser claimed that I never wrote anything negative about Salazar. That is inaccurate. When discussing whether Salazar should be called a dictator or statesman, I supported calling him a dictator. (see:[7]) When others tried to label him as fascist, I also did not oppose but instead listed reliable sources on both sides of the scholarly debate. I always respected WP:NPOV and never deleted properly sourced content.
• 2) Cullen328, also claimed that I never wrote anything positve on Sousa Mendes, also not accurate. Here is an example. [8]
• 3) Cullen328 seems to have forgotten that it was I that took the initiative, back in 2013, to reach out to him and asked him to review my editing, showing the will to follow Wikipedia policies (see here: [9].)
• 4) I was wrongly accused of being a Civil PoV Pusher. I recognize the importance of identifying and addressing editors who engage in civil POV-pushing — that is, those who maintain a tone of civility while persistently biasing content to reflect a personal or ideological agenda. However, I respectfully submit that this label does not apply to my editing history. Over more than a decade, I have created over 20 articles from scratch and contributed to dozens of others, including Battle of Aljubarrota, Sain Francis Xavier, Spanish dictator Francisco Franco article, where I was one of the main contributors. I do not shy away from controversial subjects — on the contrary, I actively seek to improve them — but I do so by consistently adding reliable academic sources, engaging on Talk pages, and avoiding the deletion of properly sourced content, even when I might disagree with it. In the case of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, the article I was banned from editing, the starting version was shaped by advocacy groups and reflected a hagiographic tone, lacking scholarly balance. The academic literature on Sousa Mendes presents a more nuanced, and at times critical, view — not an attack, but a contextualization of his actions, legacy, and relationship with the regime. My edits aimed to reflect that academic consensus, not to discredit or promote any figure. I worked to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s core principles: verifiability, neutrality, and the use of reliable sources. Moreover, I was the editor who detected and reported the coordinated activity of multiple accounts now confirmed as sockpuppets — accounts that truly did engage in ideologically driven and unsourced editing. I believe my contributions reflect an effort to raise the standard of Wikipedia’s coverage, not push a personal agenda.
• 5) Since my ban, the Aristides de Sousa Mendes article has been rewritten primarily by confirmed sockpuppet accounts, with a notable decline in academic rigor and neutrality and with the whole bibliography deleted. While multiple editors participated in the discussion that led to the topic ban — including comments from accounts now confirmed as sockpuppets — the decision ultimately rested with Cullen328. I do not question his good intentions, but I believe his judgment in this case was unfair. He acknowledged not having expertise in Portuguese history, and that he lacked time to fully analyze the article. He had not actively engaged with the topic or its Talk page in over a decade. Since the ban, he has also shown no interest in the article’s trajectory — even after over 20,000 characters of reliably sourced content were removed. I say this not as a personal criticism, but as a structural concern: topic bans must be based on careful content evaluation and awareness of prior editing context. In this case, unfortunately, a well-meaning administrator made a quick call on a complex issue, based on a perception that I was "attacking a hero" rather than engaging with well-documented academic nuance.
• 6) While the popular narrative surrounding Aristides de Sousa Mendes often casts him as a lone hero defying a tyrannical regime, this portrayal has been significantly challenged by a wide range of academic and diplomatic voices. Historians such as Tom Gallagher, Avraham Milgram, Joaquim da Costa Leite, Diogo Ramada Curto, Lina Maria Madeira, and Neill Lochery have all called for a more nuanced and evidence-based account. Their work demonstrates that many of the central claims promoted by advocacy groups — including the notion that Sousa Mendes acted in direct defiance of government policy, or that he died in poverty and disgrace — are not supported by archival documentation. These scholars are joined by prominent diplomats such as João Hall Themido, Carlos Fernandes, and Calvet de Magalhães, as well as by the late José Hermano Saraiva, who publicly questioned the narrative of Sousa Mendes as a singular opposition figure. This diversity of perspectives reflects not marginal dissent but a significant scholarly consensus that the story, as often told, is overly simplified and at times factually incorrect. Wikipedia, committed to neutrality and verifiability, should reflect this complexity.

I respectfully request that my topic ban be lifted. My objective has always been to improve Wikipedia by adhering to its core principles: verifiability, neutrality, and reliance on reliable sources. J Pratas (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you're correct about the historiography of Sousa Mendes or not. What I do know is that massive walls of text and perseverating on the underlying content dispute are liable to get you indef'd rather than result in your topic ban being lifted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm opposed. This does nothing succinctly, and it especially does not succinctly explain what led to the ban or what will be different moving forward. One major omission: a link to the community TBAN discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact it's a community topic ban, first proposed by Cullen328 but still a community CBAN and J Pratas is treating this like something imposed by Cullen328 suggests that at a minimum J Pratas still has very poor understanding of basic Wikipedia processes. Disappointing for someone with such a long tenure but even more so for someone sanctioned under those processes and now appealing such. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It should be considered good that an editor isn't experienced in being sanctioned, not bad... 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I never said an editor should be experienced in being sanctioned. However like it or not, understanding how or community processes work is something that generally matters. Perhaps it could be argued for a pure content editor who somehow never gets involved in content disputes, it doesn't matter, but this is not the case for JPratas who was in several disputes with editors. E.g. [10] [11] [12]. And according to their very own opening comment they were editing in an area heavily affected by sockpuppets and they had an active role in reporting these sockpuppets. But anyway, even if we say it doesn't matter that JPratas had no idea how community processes work on Wikipedia before they were sanctioned, the onus was on them to learn how they work before making an appeal. (Frankly I'd argue the onus was on them during the community discussion which lead to them being sanctioned.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Absolutely and 100% opposed, and I'm seriously considering a WP:BOOMERANG may be needed here, as this WP:WALLOFTEXT demonstrates that absolutely nothing has been learned from the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I stand by my assessment in the discussion that led to the topic ban that JPratas is a sophisticated, well-educated civil POV pusher willing to spend 12 years doing your (their) very best to portray Sousa Mendes in the poorest possible light. The editor is also either incapable or unwilling to write concisely, and seems to think that more wordiness is better when it comes to an appeal. I disagree with that notion. If I was incorrect when I supposedly said that 100% of their edits about Sousa Mendes were negative when the figure was more accurately 99% plus, and they once added that an Airbus was named after Sousa Mendes 60 years after his death, then I apologize for the mild exaggeration. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  When JPratas acknowledged that Salazar was a dictator, that was in the context of spouting a series of cherrypicked pro-Salazar quotations, such as a 1940 Life magazine article calling him a benevolent ruler and by far the world's best dictator. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Additional Opposing Comments

I see that this request has already been closed out, but would like to pile on a few details. I looked up the history because I handled a dispute at DRN concerning Aristides de Sousa Mendes . First, two wrongs don't make a right. There were conduct violations by both "sides". JPratas is right that there was sockpuppetry involved in the support for Sousa Mendes. The POV-pushing by JPratas began more than a decade before the sockpuppetry. But, second, there was an RFC in which good-standing editors took part that inserted language that JPratas had tried to keep out of the article. See [13]. Third, as mentioned above by Firefangledfeathers and Nil Einne, it is incorrect to say that Cullen imposed the ban. It was a community ban, proposed by Cullen, in which the closure was by The Bushranger. Fourth, in case anyone is interested, the DRN might as well be considered void, because JPratas did not participate, and the two editors who did participate have been blocked as sockpuppets. It was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_255#Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes. But it resulted in the RFC, which was a valid RFC. Fifth, it is usual for an editor who has been indefinitely banned or topic-banned to wait six months, not two months, to request lifting of the ban. There was a mention of a boomerang in the closed discussion, and I will suggest that this thread be a warning to JPratas not to waste the time of the community. Sixth, I knew that Cullen could not have unilaterally topic-banned JPratas, because The Holocaust is not a contentious topic except in Eastern Europe. Maybe The Holocaust should be a contentious topic in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Dharmasthala mass burials

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

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

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

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

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

This article calls it the Dharmasthala mass burial case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requesting an uninvolved admin close a talk page discussion

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

---

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

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

Request to create page List of Minecraft servers

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

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

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

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

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

Request to create protected article

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

---

Request to create protected article "Ayaz Sheikh"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove Speedy Deletion tag multiple times!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting close of an ARBPIA merge discussion

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

---

Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 1#Proposed merge is now the oldest open merge proposal at over nine months, and there have been no new comments in a month. Note that some of the participants have since been topic banned or indefinitely blocked as a result of WP:ARBPIA5. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removal of a political party with ballot access by partisan users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @StabbyStaby, I did the last revert [14] as unreferenced. I then left you a Welcome message that incorporates the need for referencing. Knitsey (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the recent edits describing a WTP party:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Notified: Special:Diff/1300487471

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

Closer (slakr)

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

Non-participants (NSONG)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participants (NSONG)

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

Discussion (NSONG)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thryduulf said it best: [15]. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

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

  @Voorts: You've made it abundantly clear that you're intensely dissatisfied with either my work on this, the outcome, or both, but I genuinely don't know what more to say to a colleague acting this way in response to my only two—ever—interactions with you on this ([16][17]), both of which I feel were lighthearted, straightforward, and accommodating to give you numerous options for achieving the end you so clearly desire (including just asking other admins to amend the close informally); you picked this format.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ... and recommends you consider using this format:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Revision Deletion – Accidental IP disclosure

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

---

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

Details:

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

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

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

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

Proposal for article creation ban removal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassing Me on Wikipedia User:ChildrenWillListen

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

---

Hello Respected Editors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global ban for Chealer

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

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

can someone please anonymize my bot account?

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

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

Jimbo's Talk Page Protection and problems donating

Sound and fury. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

---

While anyone can still edit Jimbo Wales page, his talk page is currently semi-protected. That makes perfect sense.

I wanted let him know that I tried to donate my 2 cents, but the greedy foundation told me that it wasn't enough, even if I covered the $0.35 transaction fee too. If you won't accept my humble offering, I kindly ask that you stop showing me requests for donations. As they say, beggars can't be choosers. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no way to know that the person on your IP address at this given moment has seen a donation request. If you create an account, you can turn off the donation requests. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The requests shouldn't be shown to anyone if they aren't willing to accept donations of any amount over the transaction cost. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place - administrators don't control that sort of matter. And anyone can register an account. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to talk to Jimbo since he is one of the founders and he is featured in the donation request, but his talk page is protected.

Don't administrators control page protection? It seems like one of them might have screwed up if the idea that anyone can edit is to be substantiated. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Understandably, Mr. Wales' talk page is often disrupted. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't there many volunteers and automated programs ready to revert vandalism in an instant? 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The transaction cost goes to the payment processor; it would probably cost the WMF more than 2 cents to collect your literal two cents. You are free to disagree with the collection policy of the WMF, but this isn't the place to discuss it. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Then maybe they should ask for

volunteers to do that part too or include the cost of hiring people to count their money for them in the transaction costs. 70.105.242.150 (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You are correct in that they shouldn’t show the donations and it’s mathematically proven that WMF can survive a good few years without donations so you should donate to somewhere that really needs it like Miraheze, AN is the wrong venue 95.5.189.119 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• The OP is just trolling (see the comment they made on this board yesterday). This discussion should be closed. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

James William Camba Escanilla vandalism

See [18] from the simple english wikipedia. A couple of IPs appear to have been vandalising in a similar pattern, adding "James William Camba Escanilla" as the governor of Bolinao. Special:Diff/1302682211. * 110.54.198.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302682311, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolinao&diff=prev&oldid=1302682211

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

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

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

Question regarding unilateral reversion of an article

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone Tried To Log Into My Account

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

---

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

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

Kantamanto Market

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

---

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

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

Hello, Marchjuly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocks backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Notified: [20]

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

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

2. None of the sources directly (or with evidence) support the statement “wanted a land with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible”. The statement is pure WP:SYNTH and likewise is not in wikivoice. This was procedurally reviewed citation by citation by DancingOwl during the RFP [21]and subsequently ignored without rebuttal. The statement does not specify which “zionists” are being referred to, and derives “want” from pure conjecture and post-conflict analysis by mostly partisan sources. The sentence does not reflect the diversity of scholarly voices presented and it is WP:CHERRYPICK to allow it in the lede. The drive by certain editors to cement this sentence in the lede may reasonably be construed as WP:ADVOCACY.

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

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

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

Closer (User:Chetsford)

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

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

In any case, regardless of my superintendence, the community decided to go ahead and etch it into stone. On 21 February, I closed a second RfC [22] that imposed a one-year moratorium on further discussion of the contentious sentence in the lead. In this case, the consensus was so overwhelming in favor of the moratorium that I didn't even feel the need to engage in a detailed recitation of the arguments (something that, in retrospect, I probably should have done but wouldn't have changed the outcome in any case).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final item: "Chetsford has agreed that a substantive review and prudent evaluation of arguments being made by editors should take place, guided by an admin with expertise in the topic area" This seems to be an ... innocent misinterpretation ... of this exchange of 8 April 2025 [23]:

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

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

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

Non-participants (Zionism)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participants (Zionism)

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

• The consensus in the RFC was clear, and strong sourcing was provided to support it; see eg. [24][25][26]. The current statement in the article cites 17 sources. The argument that it is not supported by the sources provided by DancingOwl (someone who opposed the current wording) is silly - obviously if you only look at sources provided by one side in a dispute you can get whatever outcome you want; but the discussion as a whole focused on sources, already in the article, that a consensus of editors determined support the text in question. The simple fact that a minority disagreed with that reading of the sources doesn't make the closure invalid; no one is obliged to satisfy you.
• OP also argues that DancingOwl's statement here was not rebutted, which is plainly wrong; simply scrolling down shows numerous people disputing it using detailed source analysis and policy-based reasoning. The claim it was not rebutted makes sense only from the perspective of "well I don't agree with the responses, so they failed to successfully rebut it", which is an argument that would allow anyone to close or overturn any discussion in any way they please. People who feel strongly about a topic are rarely convinced by the arguments for the other side; that's why RFCs need to be closed by uninvolved editors.
• The fact that many contributors to the discussion were later topic-banned does not affect the consensus; and in any case it is true for editors on both sides of the dispute.
• A moratorium was not imposed lightly; it was only done after months of circular discussion that constantly got reset because new users were being poured into the article by outside coverage. The constant attempts to re-litigate this issue (including this one), coupled with extensive and constant outside efforts to direct editors to the article, show why a WP:MORATORIUM is necessary - we cannot have an article's talk page consumed forever by a dispute over a single sentence; we do need a way to settle disputes, make people who disagree with a consensus WP:DROPTHESTICK, and move on. I have said in the past (and still believe) that no moratorium is truly binding, since a clear consensus can always overturn it; but you need a solid reason to do so (usually some new real-world event). "Several people in the topic area on both sides of the discussion were topic-banned" coupled with "we're right tho" are not solid arguments.

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

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

Discussion (Zionism)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBAN proposal

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

---

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

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

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

• Support As for the request to redo a RfC because some of the participants subsequently became topic-banned: if that was a general rule, we would have to redo the great majority of RfCs in the I-P-area, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per EvansHallBear and Aquillion. I've been unimpressed by this editor's contributions since I saw these in January: [27][28]. in response to their edits getting reverted by multiple editors, they've stated several times that the articles are "far from" NPOV or "not allowing" their edits, to an extent that seems tendentious or WP:DEADHORSE: (Israeli apartheid [29][30][31][32] and Zohran Mamdani [33][34][35][36][37]). They've also disregarded MOS:TERRORIST as recently as this month: [38]Rainsage (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support It feels to me like this user is trying every single avenue to get their way. I understand they disagree with the consensus and decisions made, but WP:DEADHORSE won't do anything. BeŻet (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support at minimum based primarily on their conduct at the HOUND thread, which includes baseless personal attacks against other editors and doubling down in the face of clear demonstration that other editors were in fact engaged in constructive work, and a generally uncollaborative WP:OWN attitude. I'm concerned that a topic-ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict alone does not address the disruption in relation to antisemitism topics outside the scope of the A-I conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Changes to the functionaries team, July 2025

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

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

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

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

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

User permissions

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

---

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

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

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

Announcement regarding use of checkuser by the Wikimedia Foundation

In May 2025, the Arbitration Committee became aware of a mass use of the checkuser tool on the English Wikipedia by an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and contacted the WMF with our concerns about the checks. The Foundation confidentially disclosed the reason for the checks to the Committee and immediately began an internal investigation of the tool use and development of a plan to prevent similar mass checkuser tool uses in the future.

In July, the Foundation outlined their plan to prevent such actions happening again, including localized CU training for Foundation investigators and correct use of the reason field in the checkuser tool. They will also inform the Arbitration Committee of any future use of the checkuser tool on the English Wikipedia that involves more than ten actions. The Foundation confirmed to us that the data gathered through the checks was not shared and has been destroyed. It should be noted that – as the platform operator – the Foundation's use of the checkuser tool is governed by their legal department, not by the local or global checkuser policy.

Due to the access to nonpublic personal data policy, the Committee is limited in what it can reveal about the nature of the checks, those checked, and the results of those checks. We apologise for the vague nature of much of this statement as we try to navigate our obligations under the personal data policy and provide transparency to the community.

For the Arbitration Committee, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Announcement regarding use of checkuser by the Wikimedia Foundation

Luke10:27 unban discussion

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support unblock I like how they are transparent with this- Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Total agreement with Tamzin; it's rare I see a WP:IAR as a good idea, but I think it's appropriate here. They've been a good editor in their time sockpuppeting, earning new permissions and showing no sign that it was a violation of trust. The disclosure was freely given, made no excuses, and wasn't used to forestall another active investigation that would have found sockpuppetry. Only thing I would ask for is a single account restriction, out of an abundance of caution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! A single-account restriction sounds entirely reasonable to me; I agree to refrain from creating any additional accounts without obtaining permission by community consensus. Luke10.27 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Confirmed and autoconfirmed

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

---

Looks like INhistoryMaker was given confirmed and now they're autoconfirmed. It also appears the granting admin isn't super active. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The admin in question is Dominic, a former arbitrator and functionary with nearly two million edits across all wikis. Although they aren't terribly active on this wiki at the moment, they have been organizing Indianapolis meetups, and granted the permission to INhistoryMaker as a "verified event coordinator". I think this post is looking for drama where there isn't any. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Oh no! I brought it up for someone to simply remove the confirmed bit since they're both literally the same groups with one being automatically granted. No ?drama? intended at all. I don't like dramas, jeez.

I also just realised my message didn't say that (the removal) originally, so pardon me. My main intention was to simply get someone to remove the redundant one; I had no interest in the editor or Dominic, and I also wasn't interested in evaluating any of them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: apologies for assuming intent here. I see what you mean, but the confirmed and autoconfirmed permissions are identical except that one is granted automatically; there are currently 527 manually confirmed accounts (it's a bit over my head to query how many of those are also autoconfirmed). It's silly to grant confirmed to an autoconfirmed account, but I don't think there's any real need to pull confirmed from an account once it reaches autoconfirmed. We don't ever revoke autoconfirmed (I don't even think we can) so I don't think there's any issue with leaving the confirmed bit alone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Just for information, Wikipedia:Database reports/Confirmed autoconfirmed users reports this, and I suspect some admins may have other queries. These things tend to get cleaned up eventually. There's usually no hurry, so even if someone does something redundant there's usually a delay (I wouldn't expect anyone to know any of that). Brought to you by the "temporary permissions are great" campaign. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector thank you so much for understanding, lol. I think, overall, it is interesting; seeing that both groups have exactly the same userrights as listed at Special:ListGroupRights, that only leaves me to think having both on the same account is not necessary. I mean, I totally understand that at times, users are granted the confirmed status before they're autoconfirmed (which was clearly the case for this user), and that the overall goal of the manual confirmation is to give the users access to the autoconfirmed status which has a pretty easy threshold. But it's all good! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• The redundant 'confirmed' group has been removed, we usually clean those up from time to time in batches as needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Having two indefinite blocks applied to the same user account?

Hi everyone! A few days ago, I had something... weird happen. I was blocking an LTA account when a very interesting situation that I've never seen before occurred. I know that the blocking structure has changed somewhat recently with how they apply (the new blocking page UI, partial blocks, layered blocks, applying more than one block to the same account with different expirations and restrictions, etc), but I'm wondering if what happened was perhaps an unintended result that wasn't supposed to? I messaged Paul Erik (the other admin who happened to get caught in this) about it and with all of the details - if you don't mind, can you all take a few moments and review the information I left in the message here?

In a nutshell: I applied an indefinite (site-wide) block to an LTA account via the API (a script that I wrote). At the same time, Paul Erik also did the same exact thing. My block just happened to be applied a very tiny hairline of a moment faster. In this situation, you'd expect that my block would be applied to the account as usual, and then Paul Erik's block would overwrite or "update" the initial block. However, instead of what I expected to see happen, Paul Erik's block actually added a second indefinite block to the account. I saw this both on the block page UI and in the block log (you'll find a link to it in the message). After thinking to myself, "What just happened?!! I've never seen this before...", I felt that having two indefinite blocks was unnecessary and could cause confusion for anyone who might review it. I went ahead and removed one of the two blocks using the block page UI (Paul Erik's block). The block log states that Paul Erik "added a block to" the account, and then my removal of one of the blocks was logged as if I unblocked the user entirely, which is not correct.

I'm starting this discussion to ask if anyone here is aware that this is now possible? Is this an intended change to the structure of blocking now that adding more than one block to the same user has been implemented? Has anyone else run into the same thing or seen this before? I feel like this is new and likely something that may need a phab ticket if this shouldn't be possible, but I wanted to stop here and discuss it first. I feel like allowing two indefinite site-wide blocks to be applied to the same account is completely unnecessary. With the blocking structure changes that have been implemented and are now live, I would've expected the MediaWiki software to either update the original indefinite block like we've all seen happen, or at least reject the second block attempt completely. It could also be that I'm an idiot and that this is an expected change to the structure and done so intentionally for a reason that I'm not seeing. If so, please don't hesitate to call me out on this. Sure, I'll look stupid, but at least I'll know. ;-)

TL;DR: Two indefinite site-wide blocks were applied to an account at the same time. Instead of applying the first and having the second one update the first block, it created two indefinite blocks instead! What gives?

Thanks in advance for any input, thoughts, and insights! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah: have you asked anyone at WMF? There was someone (can't remember who, and can't seem to find it) here fairly recently telling us about the new blocking functionality. They might be able to comment on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing - I have not. I figured I'd ask around here first before proceeding to go up the chain and potentially sound off a warning that might not need to be. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really a bug. Multiple overlapping blocks are now allowed. When using the WEBUI, the blocker should get informed if the account is already blocked when they start the blocking, but in a race condition they would not see it. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

c.f. mw:Help:Manage blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Xaosflux - Correct, and I'm aware of that. However, in the case where an indefinite sitewide block is being placed when one already exists on the same target, I would want the MediaWiki software, the API, and/or the (newly named) "manage blocks" page to either overwrite the indefinite site-wide block currently placed (especially if the blocking options are different) or (if there are no changes or difference between the two) not apply the subsequent block at all and ignore it. Am I crazy for thinking this, or does anyone perhaps agree and think the same thing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a feature request for multiblocks (Don't allow multiple blocks with the same expiration)... — xaosflux ^Talk 17:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Xaosflux - Multiple blocks with the same expiration (with the exception of site-wide indefinite blocks) make sense if they have different options, restrict different functions, or restrict different pages or namespaces, etc. I can see where situations might call for that to be useful and beneficial. However, I smell possible confusion, frustration, headache, and/or annoyance down the road someday if we're able to add an unlimited number of concurrent site-wide indefinite blocks to a single target. Hell, let's just write a script with an API call to indef the same account, put in inside of an infinite loop, and let 'er rip! How many concurrent blocks can you set on a target before any kind of limit is reached? /s ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That is phab:T351508, see way down below for more general on this situation though. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You previously got a warning if the other block happened while you had the form open, but that seems to be no longer the case. I'll just mention you can edit a block, if you mean to do that kind of thing. I wonder if there is a system message somewhere that should read 'removed a block', instead of 'unblocked'? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Some development related to this may be covered in phab:T351511. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

User:142.105.69.34

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

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

Hello,

I don't want to keep reverting like 20 pages back and forth, obviously, that's boring and obnoxious for both of us. I can discuss here

I don't see where you get the idea that "long-running" as a description is a violation of NPOV, in general. Like, technically I suppose someone could disagree, but that's true of a lot of adjectives. Most words don't have a black-and-white cutoff. does anyone actually disagree with the description of Sluggy Freelance as a long-running webcomic? It's among the longest ever, top ten at least. you disagree with the term, obviously, but that seems to just be a general objection to describing anything, ever, as having run for a long or short time.

thank you. 142.105.69.34 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that a webcomic running since 1997 is, objectively, "long-running". @Megainek:, the fact "99.9999% of articles don't have that" does not mean that descriptions such as this are POV when they are, in fact, valid descriptions of the topic at hand, and your edit here has an edit summary that is a personal attack agaisnt the IP editor here. Please read WP:NOTVAND. This is a content dispute, but it's over multiple articles. I have protected Sluggy Freelance, The Eyes of Texas (TV series), America's Most Wanted (disambiguation), and The Bugs Bunny Show for two weeks due to the two of you edit-warring at a slow burn. Do not edit war. Find a place to discuss this, possibly using dispute resolution, and work to a consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This user's dedication to removing "long-running" has been a, uh, long-running point of contention. @Tamzin and I both directed them to start an RfC all the way back in 2023. @User:Nathannah warned them for disruption in 2024, followed by another discussion from 2024. That was followed by a comment from July 2025, leading to an ANI which was closed with a warning: Megainek warned to not overuse NPOV and to seek consensus rather than forcing their own view on what are and are not justified descriptions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, PMC; I found a few more items to revert in this round, and I see that they're trying to justify WP:PUFFERY in order to remove words like 'popular' and 'award-winning' from several articles. It feels like we're at an intractable point with Megainek where they're going to just continue and hope they can get in a number of these edits before the talk page warnings and ANI threads scare them off anew, and it's frankly wearing at this point. I won't further revert, but as they blanked my final warning last month, we're well into IDHT territory with them. Nathannah • 📮 03:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Well. That puts a different spin on things - and I think I remember previous threads on this now. Given their long-term focus on this, and continuing to make these sorts of "small disruptions" despite final warnings, I believe a block is in order. If it was just the "long-running" thing, I'd pblock from articlespace, but I see they have run afoul of WP:NOTVAND before as well, and have continued to refer to good-faith edits as vandalism since, meaning they have repeatedly engaged in conduct considered personal attacks. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Megainek. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Note I have removed protection from the four articles above, given this further information now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism user

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

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

Blocked for 1mo by Ahecht. jp×g🗯️ 11:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Disputed article Mavala

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

---

Hello admins, I want to receive your attention related to the Mavala article. I have seen the edit history of the Mavala article which is quite controversial but I have also seen that a lot of reliable information has been removed from it without any reason. I want you to add that information again because this information is absolutely correct and all the sources given in it are also reliable.

This information was removed from article: Many of the inhabitants of the region were Mahadeo Kolis. The region was also known as Bavan Maval (52 valley).Each Maval was under the control of Koli chiefs or Nayaks. Kolis who were known as the names of Mavala Sardars earned the Naikwadis. all of this information was removed by [39] edit. Thank you Dolphish (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC) Dolphish (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

References

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

Edit request on Madhan Bob

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

---

Dear Admins and fellow editors,

Humble request.

Please seek your covering approval and kind assistance to add the relevant IMDB template and the IMDB title in the article Madhan Bob under the External Links section. The url is shared for your reference. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1485941/

In addition, please add the following content in the article to expand the article in order to nominate it possibly for ITN in Main Page.

AN is not a place to make edit requests The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Biography He was named by his parents as Krishnamoorthy. Madhan was born as the eighth child in his family. He had insisted that he had sufficient time to engage in self learning by honing skills and mastering his craft and body language including self-hypnotism. He had revealed that he wanted to maximize the learning capacity from his younger days by plying his trade playing musical instruments in order to keep himself busy and occupied. He also learnt other facets such as yoga and heavyweight boxing. He also reportedly dealt with issues pertaining to stammer, but he himself redeemed himself from the stuttering largely due to his sound knowledge of self-hypnotism.

Career Madhan also ventured into different career paths including serving as a medical representative and then serving in as a sales officer for a reasonable stint. He later quit his job as a sales officer in order to embark on opportunities in music arena. He also crossed paths meeting veteran musicians S Ramanathan, Harihara Sharma and ‘Vikku’ Vinayakaram from whom he gained mentorship and guidance in order to learn the techniques of western classical and carnatic music. Madhan had spent devoted majority of his time committing himself to broadcast music shows, songs for advertisements, dramas, radio commercials and serials. It is also believed that by the time Doordarshan had commenced its operations in Chennai in 1975, he became the first individual to play guitar on the channel. He also once served as a mentor to esteemed renowned musician A. R. Rahman, which was also confirmed by the latter himself during the music composition and audio launch of the film Thenali (2000). He later pursued his career in acting, mainly in supporting roles and Madhan was a part of consecutive silver jubilee movies and hence he was nicknamed ‘sentiment artist' by the Kollywood fraternity. Abishe (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Noting that this user is pblocked from the article name space because of a previous ANI incident ([40] link from block log) 37.186.45.131 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Better link. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

U4C call for non-voting candidates

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) has recently put out a call for people interested in becoming a non-voting member. Through last year's annual review, the community approved appointment of up to 4 non-voting members, and the U4C has now created a place and process for volunteers to express their interest. If you know of anyone who might be interested please point them out way. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask us (or ask me here). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Intentionally doing this as a reply, because I am going to be very much be speaking only for myself and am in no way speaking for other U4C members. My number one priority with this is to help create qualified people who can be elected as voting members. I am particularly hoping that we can do this in ways that increase committee diversity. One place that we don't have much diversity is in projects represented, including already having two enwiki admin (and while Dbeef wasn't at the time, two people who are actually enwiki functionaries). So if someone is primarily an enwiki editor, I would hope that they could add to committee diversity in some other real way, such as geographic diversity, language skills, or are bringing a skill set the committee needs (with high priority ones being process and technical) or even project diversity because perhaps they hold admin on a sister project not currently represented. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hateful user 92.40.213.120

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

---

• 92.40.213.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user recently edited vandalism on the article Tisha B'Av, due to it being on the Wikipedia front page as this Jewish fast day is occuring today. Their edit summary was 'Hava Nagila Heathens'

If this isn't clear-as-day antisemitism, then I don't know what is. This has nothing to do with Israel, it is simply an antisemitic dogwhistle of randomly stating the name of the stereotypical Jewish song, followed by calling Jews 'heathens'. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the IP has edited twice in the last year and their edit was reverted without incident, I don't believe there's much to do here other than issuing a standard warning. Sophocrat (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked; given the edit-filter hit we're in WP:ZT territory. For future reference, WP:AIV is the best place for this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much friend <3 FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Im at my mother in laws condo make a new account and it took me here...trusting no one in the building is the culprit 2605:8D80:666:737A:4871:5632:3689:6AE (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:104.159.73.87: keeps adding back unsourced information, personnal attack/WP:FAITH

User:104.159.73.87 keeps adding back unsourced information at Code cave despite being aware of WP:BURDEN. He also said I was committing vandalism, which is a violation of WP:FAITH

See:

• [41]
• [42]

Veverve (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Veverve, have you tried talking with them? WHat communication did you have before deciding to come to WP:AN? This is where editors come when all other methods of dispute resolution have not worked out. What methods have you tried? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: we have had a short discussion at User talk:104.159.73.87#July 2025. Despite this, the user has showed their unwillingness to comply with WP:BURDEN, i.e. that "[a]ny material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Veverve (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am kinda seeing the opposite regarding BURDEN. From the edit history, you did cut the article down by over 90% within five minutes back on the 20th. And as the IP user pointed out in their edit summary, BURDEN's footnotes does say: When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. (...) For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified. (Emphasis mine) Most of your edit summaries are just pointing at policy. (Yes, that is about AFD, but I believe the point applies here as well.) Given that most of this is about BURDEN, wouldn't it have been easier to check for sources and then tell the IP user that "I was unable to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable" and if the edit warring had continued to take the advice that you got at WP:RFPP?

On a different note, do you know what was meant by "influencer drama" in the one edit summary? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: the way you explain it seems to shift the burden of proving on the person removing unsourced claims. How is one to prove something cannot be verified? This would imply that things can be kept because one thinks they could be verified, but that contradicts the very concept of WP:BURDEN.

I have now explained in each edit the issue I had. I have also added [citation needed] tags. If no RS is added to support these parts in a few months, I will remove them. Hopefully, that solves the issue. However, I expect that what I have removed will be added back anyway.

I did not remember the advice I was given at WP:RFPP.

I do not know what they mean by "influencer drama". Veverve (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

How is one to prove something cannot be verified? By attempting to verify it and failing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"I have now explained in each edit the issue I had. I have also added [citation needed] tags. If no RS is added to support these parts in a few months, I will remove them. Hopefully, that solves the issue."

That does resolve the issue at least as far as I am concerned. I am glad it was understood by others that my issue was with the hastiness and all-encompasing nature of the deletions.

As for the reference to "influencer drama," to keep it as brief as possible because it's not very important, a popular streamer named PirateSoftware has become a figure of controversy recently, with one of the accusations levied at him being his apparent lack of understanding of what a code cave was. I'll admit that hearing about that is what sent me to the wikipedia article for it to learn more, only to find it all deleted. I think the other user assumed due to the coincidental timing that the deletions were related to that, but based on my interactions with Veverve I don't share that suspicion. 104.159.73.87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so that seems to be where it came from. I guess we don't need to add {{high traffic}} to the talk page then. (I thought the drama mentioned our article, but it appears not.)

Regarding the deletions, Veverve does seem to be correct that there are no reliable sources on this subject. I will withhold action for 48 hours, but do you know of a reliable source for the article that would support any of the claims made? Otherwise, I am willing to endorse Veverve's edit as my searches came up with nothing yesterday.

Also, Veverve is correct regarding assuming good faith. Please be careful if you claim in the future that someone is engaging in vandalism. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger said it best. You just need to do a check and see if you come across anything. If you don't within a short period of time, then you can tell the other user that and have satisfied the conditions.

As for the rest, it is good, but I will note that I did check for sourcing and didn't find anything. Because of that, I am willing to endorse your edit in 48 hours if no one else has. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. If IP editors or registered users continue restoring unsourced content after that, let me know, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date

Hi, if someone could use Twinkle/automation to clear out this 233(!) page speedy deletion backlog that would be appreciated :) —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 09:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not actually a good idea. They all need to be individually checked for proper source and correct license. The first one I looked at is nominated for deletion on the Commons and is listed at WP:FFD as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer permission

In preparation for the deployment of temporary accounts (currently scheduled for September 2025, i.e. next month), there is a new permission which allows non-admins to see the IPs of temporary accounts. Admins are automatically granted access. The criteria for granting are available for your viewing pleasure, and note that use and disclosure of the tool is both logged and subject to the requirement that the access is used to prevent or investigate violations of our policies/guidelines.

Non-admins: Please go apply now at WP:PERM/TAIV! There will be a flood of people when they realize IP addresses have gone away; this is your chance to both cut the line and ensure you have access immediately, come temporary account deployment.

Admins: There will be a flood of applicants at PERM. Please consider watching the page for at least the next month or two while we sort through the inevitable flood of requests—we have had 24 requests in less than 24 hours. You can see the requirements for granting the perm at WP:TAIVGRANT.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, the way the policy is written, specifically WP:TAIVGRANT ¶ 4, applicants do need to affirmatively state they will comply with applicable policies. It looks like almost all of the successful applications so far have not done that. Fortunately, I don't think any rights need to be pulled or anything, because the global requirement of agreeing to the policy is still met when the user agrees to the clickwrap contract in Special:Preferences... but at least as far as our local policy is concerned, applicants are expected to say this explicitly at time of application. Or if we see that as redundant, we should reword policy accordingly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this was also brought up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#TAIV requirement of agreement to abide by Foundation policy. IMO the clipwrap contract is good enough for the Foundation requirement, so at PERM we just need to verify the other requirements for granting. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like HouseBlaster just added this footnote relevant to this. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Izno's partnership with BangJan1999

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

---

Nominally the partnership between BangJan1999 and Izno is about reporting one single sock master (AttackTheMoonNow) disrupting one single area of Wikipedia (ITN/C).

As deeply suspicious as that relationship is, looking at BangJan1999's edit history and the rapid service Izno gives them at AIV and SPI, I suppose if it gets results, people will look the other way.

But with one apparently unwarranted block and a deeply time wasting dispute over whether or not an article should be deleted on principle, I think maybe it's time someone asked these two if they're doing more harm than good. And indeed if there's anything about this relationship that they might need to declare. A conflict of interest, perhaps. Janeshrack (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

—Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: Sounds like your buddy Gronk's Fortune is back. Polygnotus (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I would rather not be the one to issue the block (or check the account) since I've been named at ANI. Unless someone else wants to tell me this falls under the "what any reasonable admin would do" exception of INVOLVED. Izno (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's many Admins who would unflinchingly act on reports filed by users with the kind of suspicious edit history BangJan1999 has. Your almost symbiotic relationship to them at the very least suggests you lack the required detachment when dealing with this particular case. It has already seen one user wrongly blocked, and I think this relationship is the reason why you didn't consider any of the mandated alternatives to blocking. Luckily they knew how to navigate the UTRS system and were motivated to do so. Many aren't. Janeshrack (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Since this is now being discussed at AN, would any administrators be able to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II? That article was created by the above sock and deleted as a G5 by Izno. Sam11333 then put in an undeletion request and received the old article by email, and then copied the emailed text into Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II. I'm concerned there may be attribution issues since the history of the original article is still deleted, and this seems like a roundabout way of circumventing the G5 deletion. Also pinging Black Kite as an involved admin. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Sam's copy paste here was inappropriate from an attribution perspective. I do not know if that's what BK had in mind. Izno (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

For the record, that block was perfectly fine, and I'm saying that as the admin who ultimately reversed it. {{cu needed}} to sort this sock into the appropriate drawer, please. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you expand on that then? Specifically, are you trying to suggest Izno had absolutely no other alternatives available to them but to block? And in a manner that totally precludes any kind of transparent or even easy method of appeal? Janeshrack (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Janeshrack, you do realize that it is nearly impossible for a brand new editor, with their very first edit, to open a complaint on WP:AN against an administrator and NOT be a block evading returning editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Who said I was brand new? Would it not be wise, for example, in the circumstances, where it appears a suspicious account (BangJan1999) is being used to target people in a less than transparent way, in an apparent partnership with one specific Admin/CU who has already placed one incorrect block in his apparent zeal to "what any reasonable admin would do", to be cautious about what you reveal when reporting said issue? Janeshrack (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you're a WP:PROJSOCK. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

And this gravedancing [43] confirms that this isn't a good-faith editor. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Attribution issues at Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II

• Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears my comment got lost in the above thread, but I would still like a second opinion about the concerns I raised at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II. My primary concern is that the current text of Oleksandr Usyk vs. Daniel Dubois II was sent to an editor by email and is not accessible in the page history, which raises attribution concerns. The bulk of the content was also written by a sock, which effectively circumvents the G5 deletion. I'm curious to get some advice about the best approach to resolve these issues. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

With G5, I believe that if another good-faith editor is willing to "adopt" the text, then it's acceptable. I'm not sure I entirely agree (per WP:DENY), but I've restored the old article history for now to resolve the attribution origins while this can be discussed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, restoring the history at least addresses the attribution concerns. I'm inclined to agree with you about WP:DENY, but considering that an editor in good standing went out of their way to request the article be restored, I think it's probably fine to keep it in mainspace. I went ahead and marked it as reviewed, but I'm happy to discuss further if other editors have any concerns. Zeibgeist (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Partly my fault that, I probably should have told Sam11333 to attribute the text when he inserted it, but I assumed as a long-time editor they would have known that. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Spanish speaking administrator or user

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

---

Does anyone know of a Spanish speaking administrator or user who might be able to help User:Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu? The account is a little over a month old and this person seems to be working on a draft for a new article on their user page, which is OK per se but probably should be moved either to a WP:USD or WP:DRAFT to avoid getting tagged for speedy deletion. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this while checking on some recently uploaded files and finding File:Alejandro Miguel Zamora Gonzalez - Interstellar Master.png uploaded yesterday by the same user. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly, we have all sorts of categories for editors with different language abilities. I'd look there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. I thought of moving it myself, but I figured it might be better for someone who could explain what was done in Spanish if necessary to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked him. He was aware that this is the English Wikipedia, but was using his userspace to host an autobiography (not as a draft but as something he linked from another website linked in the userpage) because the Spanish Wikipedia wouldn't let him do so at es:User:Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks anyway for taking a look at this SilverLocust. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Poundthiswriter

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

---

I'm WP:INVOLVED so I'm bringing this here- Poundthiswriter has an attitude and lacks basic human civility to the point where they need some action taken against them- either a WP:NOTHERE block or a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, as most of their hostility seems related to Israel.

This user came to my attention after attempting to move Zhug(an article about a Yemini food) to a different title(diff) based on the Yemini name. They termed its move to Zhug(which cited COMMONNAME) as "vandalism". I warned them against page moves without consensus(a final warning as they had prior warnings). They then made a page move request and cited "as per usual on English language Wikipedia Israelis' word is taken at face value while anything opposing their view requires a mountain of proof or else it faces the edit war to end all etdit wars by bot accounts or obsessive nationalists."- a clear reference to Arab-Israeli disputes (along with their edits summaries on Zhug) so I gave them a final warning about edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict(they had previously had the formal notification of the sanctions). Their response was to tell me to fuck off along with other insults, including sayingsuggesting that anyone who edits about Israel is an Israeli government agent personally sent here by Benjamin Netanyahu, but could not offer any evidence that specific editors are Israeli agents. Other posts on their talk page are similar. They think it's more civil to curse at us and insult us than not.

Their beef seems related to what they term "Israeli cultural imperialism" and disagree with how WP:COMMONNAME is interpreted(even when a fellow Yemini editor pointed out policy to them). What a subject is called is certainly a legitimate point of discussion, but this user cannot divorce their views on the Arab-Israeli conflict from this topic. Even as I write this Poundthiswriter rejects the counsel of that editor who advised them that they could be blocked, saying they aren't afraid of it. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to this recent claim, I don't want them "kicked off the site". I want them to comply with policy- especially on civility- as they pursue any legitimate edits they wish to make. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 1 month as a WP:CTOP sanction for the ECR violations and incivility. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 09:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Removal of 3X ban on User:ByzantineIsNotRoman

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

---

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

So I messed up a little- I saw the unblock request of this user, blocked for edit warring/disruption by Bbb23(now departed). Given that some time had passed and their request seemed sincere, I decided to remove it. I did not look at their user page(just the block log) where it said that the ban was a 3X community ban. I noticed this morning when the user asked me if they could remove the sockpuppetry notice. I restored the block, so I'm now here asking if the community wants to remove the ban. A checkuser should probably look at it(the main reason I restored the block). 331dot (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support unban as per WP:ROPE. I see no technical evidence of recent ban evasion. --Yamla (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I'm generally amenable to appeals whose principal argument is: "I was immature, I'm less so now"; it's a good posture for an editor to have. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support – seems genuinely reflective and contrite, either they know what we want to hear or really mean it having gained two years of further maturity; either way, ROPE will show soon enough. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I like what I read in the block appeal. Seems honest. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Query on CTOP

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

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

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

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

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

@Ad Orientem: Speaking of which, do you have any objection to Ben Shimoni being moved to draftspace and once again ECP'd at Draft:Ben Shimoni (which you lowered from ECP to semi)? Even if it's unprotected, the creator is not allowed to create or edit pages (including drafts) under WP:ARBECR (including under the WP:PIA topic), and they had already been informed of this on their talk page. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd just delete it outright per WP:G5. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given a plausible case for notability, I've moved it back to draft space, restored the EC and left a note on the user's talk page. I've also updated the log entry at WP:AEL (from July). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

RevDel request

[44] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000: in the future, please request revision deletion of this sort of content via IRC. This is a highly visible page. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't use IRC, Special:EmailUser/Oversight works. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Or also, one of these administrators. Salvio ^giuliano 21:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't want it oversighted as I wanted admins to see it as I think this user is going to be an ongoing problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Renamed user 9b6d6c85af30a90451242f89f76d6503

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

---

• Renamed user 9b6d6c85af30a90451242f89f76d6503 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove rollback and PCR. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Big Brother 26 voting table dispute

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

---

There is an on going dispute about changing the voting table on the Big Brother 26 page particularly regarding the HoH during week four. Angela Murray won Head of Household that week and Quinn Martin a DeepFake Head of Household power. This topic has been voted and debated before in the past. I'm not sure why we are bringing this up again. It was clearly voted on back in August 2024. We are going to bring another full discussion until the matter is resolved. I suggest we protect the Big Brother 26 page from further vandalism. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be in an edit war with another user. You both need to stop reverting on that page and discuss the changes on the talk page before making them. CoconutOctopus talk 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Both Welcometothenewmillenium and JoyfullySmile have been blocked 24 hours for WP:3RR violations on this article. Also please read WP:NOTVAND. 'Edits I don't like', or even 'edits that are wrong', are not vandalism, and calling them such can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, edits are still continuing at that article, but now by IPs. Gee, I wonder who that might be… 🤔 Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 there for 24 hours as a hardblock and semi-protected the article for 72 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Can we get administration at Template:Halloween

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

---

• Template:Halloween (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Although the long-term colors of orange and black used on the {{Halloween}} navbox have been under informal discussion with no consensus, although three editors "don't like it" and one, myself, has defended the traditional colors, the colors were changed and reverted back to the change when challenged. I would ask admin assistance in bringing back the orange and black coloring and a full RfC be opened to notify more editors of this attempt. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't need an admin to open an RFC, just stop edit warring and do it. This isn't a BLP issue or something that must be a certain way while it's discussed. There's also a rough consensus on the talk page to change the colors so there's no reason to revert back without an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

A very limited decision at the navbox talk page, I just noticed that the Halloween talk page wasn't alerted to the discussion (which it should have been, and my fault as much as the editors advocating the change). I'd ask for the long-term colors to be returned before an RfC is opened, or at least keep just the orange which I've just added. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for administrative intervention here. If a RFC should be opened, then you can do it yourself, ensuring that any notifications of it are appropriate and neutral. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

RfC closure review request at Talk:Uğur_Şahin#RfC_about_Turkish_ethnicity_in_first_sentence

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

---

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

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

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

Notified: [45]

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

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

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

Closer (Fieari)

Non-participants (Uğur Şahin)

Endorse I fail to see the merit/purpose of this challenge given the user does not challenge the close but rather some wording that just suggests what editors should do for content that was not part of the RFC. Removing the wording wouldn't change anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Uğur Şahin)

Discussion (Uğur Şahin)

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

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

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

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

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

  I also think my "apparent grievance" is very valid. If you look at BioNTech's website, Uğur Şahin's nationality is listed as "Turkish" [46] (web archive pdf link for Uğur Şahin's resume). This in addition to multiple reliable sources about Uğur Şahin's Turkish nationality.

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

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

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

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

  As I suspected, "German" was quickly added back in [47].

  If you look at article history, there seems to be something like an edit war going on, involving multiple editors and IPs, where "German" is kept in and "Turkish" is kept out. This has been literally going on for years.

  I think contradiction of WP:ONUS with WP:NOCON needs to be discussed in WP:VP. Current wording of WP:NOCON also seems susceptible to WP:GAME, in cases where potentially an "engineered stable version" is maintained. Bogazicili (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another consideration here is Tserton's RfC title and statement violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RfC title was RfC about Turkish ethnicity in first sentence. The RfC statement was Should the first sentence of this article be changed to include Uğur Şahin's Turkish ethnicity/background, rather than simply calling him "German"?

As previously discussed in the talk page, Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Citizenship_in_the_lead, the issue was not only about ethnic background, but also about Uğur Şahin's current nationality/citizenship Bogazicili (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bogazicili, I see your point about the RfC wording, but I think it's a minor detail that would have made little to no difference to the outcome. What to call multinational famous people is a perennial debate on Wikipedia that most people already have opinions on, and those opinions don't depend on whether it's the subject's citizenship or ethnicity that's being discussed. Tserton (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço

Over at WMF Village pump a member of the trust and safety team has alerted the community about an office action on Caesar DePaço. This feels like an issue people who watch this page and not that one may wish to know and talk about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

How is any editor supposed to do anything with this article now, without legal risk, since we can't know what the illegal in Portugal content is?

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#How is this article to be maintained going forward?

How exactly does this work for editors? Should the page be sent to WP:AfD to protect future editors? Permanent full lockdown and all edits have to go through the talk page and WMF scrutiny? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

BLAR it, then fully-protect the redirect would be my guess. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It was BLAR'd and reverted. Now at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Now this is an outcome I'm sure that the article subject didn't expect when they filed their lawsuit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out in that discussion, we have other pages that seem to mention the issues that the court ordered removed from pages other than DePacos, like on Alina Habba. We need to figure out how to handle those too. Masem (t) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WMFOffice left a paragraph about that lawsuit in the DePaço article, what is there to handle? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be best to let WMF Legal figure out if and how other articles are affected by the court order before we start removing content. Donald Albury 13:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I fear that whatever we do here will end up setting a bad precedent. If we replace the page with a template, as some have proposed, that incentivizes anyone who feels that they are negatively portrayed in Wikipedia to seek such a court action. BD2412 T 20:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the court action was successful. That's the precedent. I think the goal of the template would be to generate sufficient publicity about the court action to make it an undesirable choice (and perhaps to get the action reversed). Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that (i) adding a template and (ii) replacing the article with the template are two different proposals. I personally support (i) and strongly oppose (ii). Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the counterpoint to that is that if we keep an article that has been manipulated at the direction of the subject, we are no longer abiding by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And I know some have said something along the lines of "well we can have an article just not with those statements", but then are we not projecting an artificially improved article that benefits the subject?

FWIW, I'd rather have cut all ties with Portugal than accept the verdict, but apparently that wasn't an option. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I still think the deletion of the article would be an interesting result to happen in a situation where a person decides to sue Wikipedia because they don't like content in an article where they are featured. No problem, no article on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The subject doesn't seem to want an article though... Its a nice roundabout way to getting your article deleted even when you're genuinely notable and a lot of it is for less than savory stuff. As long as there is any mention of Chega in that article DePaço is not going to be happy and there remains a lot more than a mention even after the office action (for context I've handled much of the enwiki interactions with his lawyer and lawyers socks). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Portuguese article has a lot of content on Chega though. It's an interesting comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at :Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa/Archive 2#RfC about using 'Interim President' or just 'President'

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Closer (Toadspike)

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

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

Non-participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

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

Participants (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

Discussion (Ahmed al-Sharaa)

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

Rename of Arjun G. Menon to ArtistProgrammer

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not sure I would have made the rename, but now that we're here, I don't like the idea of reimposing his real name on him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner – I commented that there was an open ANI discussion at the first rename request [48], my concern at the time was that a rename during the discussion could cause confusion. Now that a cban has been implemented I no longer have that concern and do not believe that a rename will obfuscate their conduct in any meaningful way. I'm unsure what the purpose of a banner would be, any unban requests will have to be proposed to and reviewed by the community, and I do not think that a rename will conceal conduct in that case. The idea of requiring a user keep their real name on their userpage is one that I'm uncomfortable with, even in the case of a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• The rename must be reversed or else we set a precedent in favor of bad-faith antics which can't be allowed to stand. And there was never going to be any "privacy" anyway as former usernames are inherently public. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• Revert rename - Per @Pppery: - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner. Even though I voted for the siteban, unlike pppery, I don't see any bad faith antics here surrounding the rename. HB's arguments about real names resonates with me, and to pppery's point, I have no problem setting a precedent that even sitebanned users can get a rename away from their real name. I don't even think the banner is necessary for the reasons 15224 lays out above. As others point out, there is no obfuscation here since we know the renamed user is sitebanned, and they'll have to go to AN to get that lifted anyway. The rename isn't going to obfuscate or impede the siteban in any away. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  +1 Had I seen your denials, I would've messaged you first and declined the request if you raised an objection. But I made this bed, and now we have to lie in it. My apologies, FlightTime. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  We don't have to lie in it. We're merely choosing to do so and endorsing WP:FAIT when all it would take to wake up from your bed would be the mere push of a button. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed. Renaming to avoid scrutiny is bad. The original request was a bad request in that regard. However, once the AN/I discussion was over, avoiding scrutiny was not a factor: the user was banned. Therefore, we know that the rename will not hide continuing disruption by the same user, as this user is unable to disrupt Wikipedia due to the ban. Adding in the real name issue, I believe the rename was properly timed. Now, if the user had not been banned, but rather had been warned, I would be concerned about a rename, as ongoing bad behavior may not be linked in some people's minds to the prior account name, which could allow the user to fly under the radar for a while. In short: the fact that the user was banned and the fact that it was a rename from a real name both contributed to making this an acceptable rename. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• I have added a note to ArtistProgrammer's userpage about the rename. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep renamed, no banner per WP:REALNAME and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. HouseBlaster's post above about ArtistProgrammer's suggestion is disingenuous: ArtistProgrammer asked that a banner with their real name be put up if necessary, and it's not necessary at all. We shouldn't be unnecessarily throwing up barriers to editors wishing to protect their own anonymity, and there is no benefit whatsoever to the community of forcing this user (banned or not) to publish their real name on a page they cannot edit. We already have a banner noting that they are banned, we don't need a second banner with their real name to convey the same information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  True. Per emerging consensus here, I've removed the banner I added. If there is consensus to re-add the banner, I am not going to stand in the way, but I now support no banner. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep renamed, no banner exactly per Ivanvector. This user has been banned, meaning that we are seeking to separate him from Wikipedia, and has left the project. There is no benefit to either the project or the former user to reversing a rename away from his real name, thereby perpetuating the very association between him (under this real name) and Wikipedia that the ban seeks to sever. We have ample records relating to the account in the event of any future issues with this user, which we presently have no reason to anticipate, or in case he seeks to appeal the ban and return someday in the future. Finally, I am entirely untroubled that treating this departing user decently could set a precedent for treating other departing users decently as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025

At their request, the Checkuser permissions of SQL (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks SQL for their service as a member of the Checkuser team.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

PTAC proposals for feedback

The Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) is a one-year pilot of a group of Wikimedia Foundation staff and community members that advise the Wikimedia Foundation on its technical direction and provide input on the long-term product and technical priorities for the Wikimedia movement.

Following recent community reactions surrounding two initiatives, the trial of AI-generated article summaries, which subsequently led to the RFC surrounding AI features by the WMF and the concerns surrounding Tone Check, members of the Product and Technology Advisory Council came together to form two working groups to brainstorm ways to improve how the Foundation conducts and communicates experiments and product development and how it engages with the community surrounding updates regarding its product development.

As a result of the brainstorming, we came up with a set of proposals of experiments the Wikimedia Foundation can conduct to increase transparency, trust, and lead to more constructive engagement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia communities. We would like to community provide feedback on the proposals at the talk page. This feedback phase will last until August 22, following which (provided there are no objections) we will forward the proposals to the Wikimedia Foundation Product and Technology Department who will subsequently look into ways of implementing and incorporating these recommended experiments. Sohom (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta thanks for your work (and also thanks to several others who I am familiar with and respect). I'm wondering if the PTAC could model some Better prepared feedback sections in this request because I'm not sure what kind of feedback you want or would find helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 The question we are asking are:

- "Do folks agree with this direction/proposal put forth?"

- "Do you think there is something else we should have considered/added?"

- "Based on our work, do you think we should have gone a different direction or focused on something in particular?"

I'll add explicit call-outs to the questions at the top of the feedback section :) The end goal of the consultation/feedback phase is to ensure that the council's opinions are not in a vacuum and that we are not suggesting something that is at odds with what the community wants/expects (or is adversarial to the community). Sohom (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

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

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles

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

---

Hello Wikipedia admins, can you move this page to "Wikipedia:Deleted articles with 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒌𝒚 titles" and leave a redirect behind, please? I think it'd be humourous, and it's a humourous page. (notice the fancy font on the word "freaky"). I am asking here, because when I tried to move it, it told me to tell this noticeboard. AAHW (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@AAHW: no. In more ways than one, no. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds daft. No. —Kusma (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm obviously not an admin, but I can pretty much guarantee that this request will be denied. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OP now blocked per WP:NOTHERE. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely a strange section, but they've also been attempting to make content edits: [49] [50] [51]. They'll need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia if they're going to stick, but NOTHERE is a stretch. Pinging the blocking admin Mfield in case they have an extended rationale. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I may have placed a little to much weight on the recent edits vs the older stuff, although i wonder looking at it again now and with the dates maybe this is not the same person making these edits to the prior ones, i am going to change the block to short one with some policy suggestions, and we'll see what happens after that. Mfield (Oi!) 17:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Not sure how to create a wiki account because this IP address no matter where I go seems to be blocked due to other users

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

---

There seems to be some heavy glitches . First time loger 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:CreateAccount. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I just don't get it. Never ever tried logged in until this week- tried signing up in two different cities now and its quite distributing 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It says This does not affect your ability to read this page and perform other actions on other pages.

Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range ‪2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/33‬ has been partially blocked by ‪The Bushranger‬ for the following reason(s):

Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: continued disruption after initial pblock.

This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd.

Note that this block does not affect your ability to do other things on the site. A full detail of the partial block can be found on the block list and at your contributions page.

This partial block may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, on your talk page, or by UTRS.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Information on partial blocks · Help:I have been blocked 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Try now; your IP address has changed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd.

Same stuff 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Your IP is not blocked or rangeblocked, and you do not have a block message on your IP's current talkpage (or have a talkpage at all). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh...in dumb dumb terms 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything at all keeping you from editing or creating an account, and the message of This block will expire on 04:46, 16 August 2025. Your current IP address is 2607:fea8:f825:ed00:cfed:ffb5:a74a:b9fd makes no sense because there is no block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Could the block have survived through the MW session? According to a code comment at DatabaseBlock.php, A DatabaseBlock (unlike a SystemBlock) is stored in the database, may give rise to autoblocks and may be tracked with cookies. The function BlockManager::getBlockFromCookieValue applies a block if the cookie "BlockId" is set. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and explanation 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you tried clearing your cookies? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Will do. 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Did not work. 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Close all browser tabs and open them again, maybe that will help if "BlockId" is a session cookie. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Tried even Firefox, a new browser app etc. It's been now two attempts in two different cities as well. I truly couldn't be more innocent of a block 😪 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Can you temporarily remove the account creation blocked setting from the block on 2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/33? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, let's see if that helps @2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD, try now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Worked. You are superstars 2607:FEA8:F825:ED00:CFED:FFB5:A74A:B9FD (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

A current RFC with potentially unlimited scope

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

---

I would like some admin(s) to have a look whether this RFC [52] is compliant with policy. The intent is to standardize climate change coverage within every article about any specific weather event (which would include a potentially unlimited number of articles, since weather keeps happening). But can one ordinary RFC actually do that? Shouldn't that require drafting and approval a new MEDRS-style guideline with massive community-wide input? I thought normal RFCs were for specific aspects of a small number of articles and understood not to have potentially infinite scope and duration. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Deleting valid information rather than editing it

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

---

Ok, so this is a very tricky one. I inputted my work into a Wikipedia page Theanine, which was lacking in some pertinent information. I still do not understand why an editor Zefr that employs these excuses "Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance," should outright delete my work. I am very new to Wikipedia so if this is the wrong page to address this issue, please feel free to redirect me to the correct place. Note --> This page has been suffering from content removal for a while, and I would appreciate a valid explanation. Also, feel free to verify my information, and correctly cite it for me!

Extra Information can be useful [the sources are in a previous version of the article itself]

Since this information no longer exists in the current Theanine page, people no longer can find this information on an encyclopedia page of Theanine. This information can be beneficial for people who need to understand how it works... why it does what it does. Theanine is a chemical that impacts the human physiology, and there is no area within the current forum that tells people how or why. Yes, this is not basic information, but if people want to understand what theanine does, maybe it has pertinence?

I delivered this feedback to the user/editor who disagreed with this information [below]: This is simply being addressed to point out how I replied per its removal

"As I have shown, you may look for the info yourself and study those connections. As such, this information is non-bias and I would of appreciated if you were to make it neutral tense without deletion. Since the information is correct, you may verify it yourself before submitting an deletion based on "verifiable source errors." Deleting information rather than correcting or assisting in its correct publicity per your own rules and regulations is morally and intellectually wrong in my opinion"

"Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance?" Because science is about discovery, and confirming clinical significance takes time and replication. Additionally, having an opinionated statement like this may indicate a conflict of interest regarding this page. This is my opinion, and I would like to be proven wrong. But removing "verifiable information" does not help this page or its readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel 020125 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

collapsing large block of disputed article content Left guide (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

In vivo

Rodent studies have shown that theanine crosses the blood-brain barrier modulates neurotransmitter levels in the brain. L-theanine increases dopamine (DA) release in the striatum which impacts mood regulation via dopaminergic pathways. Several effects on serotonin (5-HT) vary by brain region and dosage. Some studies found that ingesting L-theanine increases levels of 5-HT in the hippocampus and decreased levels in the cortex. Additionally, L-theanine may reduce stress without sedation which is mostly likely caused by its modulation of GABAergic activity.

Neurophysiology

In a 2012 mouse study, Di and colleagues demonstrated that L-theanine inhibited the rewarding effects of nicotine. L-theanine lowered nicotine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) to similar levels as the nicotinic receptor inhibitor DHβE which suppressed nicotine-elicited increase in tyrosine hydroxylase (protein enzyme) expression and dopamine production in the midbrain. Also, L-theanine reduced the upregulation of α7, α4, and β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subunits within the mesocorticolimbic system, specifically the ventral tegmental area (VTA), prefrontal cortex, and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Additionally, L-theanine inhibited nicotine-induced c-Fos expression in the mesocorticolimbic system.

In November 2014, research suggested that theanine may attenuate nicotine dependence along with nicotinic symptomatic behaviors.

Electroencephalographic (EEG) studies have shown that ingestion of theanine increases activity in the alpha frequency band (8–14 Hz). Since alpha waves (Berger's waves) are sensitive to overall attentional states, higher activity may result in enhanced cognition and greater attentional control. In 2009, an intersensory attention experiment found that ingesting 250 mg of L-theanine may amplify intersensory perception as parieto-occipital alpha power (8–13 Hz) increases during cue processing. However, a subsequent study conducted in 2021 found that 250 mg of L-theanine did not significantly enhance the differential effects of attention. L-theanine instead produced a pronounced reduction in overall tonic alpha activity (tonic inhibtion). Previous EEG studies have demonstrated that lower alpha power (alpha desynchronization) reduces the overall neuronal activity in the default mode network (DMN). As such, an ingestion of L-theanine causes tonic inhibition which may cause the DMN to switch from a resting state to a task-positive state, thereby increasing arousal.

Theanine crosses the blood brain barrier (BBB), via sodium-coupled amino acid transporters, reaching the brain approximately 30-60 minutes after oral ingestion. In humans, theanine has a bioavailability of 47–54% (capsules or tea) and can reach up to 72-74% if it is erythrocyte-bounded (plasma protein binding). This binding can be represented by the reversible equilibrium:

Protein + Theanine ⇌ Protein–Theanine Complex

Therefore, theanine reversibly binds with plasma proteins which affects its distribution and half-life. Daniel 020125 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Daniel 020125, why did you think this content dispute needed the attention of administrators of the community? Content discussion belong on the article talk page, not WP:AN. If, in the future, you have questions about Wikipedia, you should bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok that is good to know. I will use the Teahouse in the future. Since this is already here, I would like to readdress the problem into the entire pages management itself. The theanine page might benefit from more information, so I just did not understand why he outright deleted more than one section that others have tried to put in. Power abuse is what I think this problem represents. If he were to edit it by adding the sources [he can do this], I would commend and appreciate his effort to help the page itself. Daniel 020125 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, Daniel 020125, if you have a question about an editor's action, you don't come to a noticeboard, you go to their User talk page and, you know, ask them and discuss the situation. I recommend you try that first. Noticeboards are where an editor comes when every other effort at Dispute Resolution has been unsuccessful. But you don't start here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Non-notable journal?

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

---

Studies in the history of biology (journal) - edited, ref and links added to databases and independent sources. Is it OK now? Ivtorov (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter for WP:AN. As the article has been tagged with a WP:PROD tag, if you believe that it has been improved then you are free to remove it. CoconutOctopus talk 10:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Bhiu1

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

---

User:Bhiu1 just created their account yesterday, and is immediately doing disruptive editing or wp:vandalism. They created a page: Draft:Leadership under Barack Obama and just copy edited, the entire page about Barack Obama's presidency into his page, I called him out for it and he is now denying it. I decided to come here to the administrators notice so we can resolve this issue with a neutral party, thank you. I just tried to report this dispute resolution and it didnt work, so we are here now, for anyone wondering. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but don't see any WP:VANDALISM myself. Bhiu1 seems to be editing in good faith, without a full understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also, since they're only drafts, it's possible they'll eventually put the text into their own words, and copied from other articles as a source of reference. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Heres the thing, I tried to resolve it peacefully but he kept denying it, even though the truth was in the pudding, he did copy edit 99% of the barack obama presidency page. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I see they've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. I think new users should be treated with patience, which you did. If they were copying content as a source of reference, then changed it to their own words, it's better they do so on a Google Doc or something until it can be called their own work. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Evidence section

1. Special:Contributions/Bhiu1 -Has alot of pages related to presidencies and leadership
2. [53] - revision showing the copy edit with 291,000 bytes added.

No I didnt Bhiu1 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I made this page and added the same information about his presidency, the election and the information about him. It's for the candidate of the party for the upcoming election Bhiu1 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Barack Obama cannot run for a third term, he is barred constitutionally so, and also, you have more than like 50 pages on presidencies and leadership atp. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

i know he cant run for a third term that's why I added the date he won the candidate election and the moment the new candidate was elected to take the party to the election Bhiu1 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You literally did. ref for anyone in the dark: [54] EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

and I'm not denying that but I did not copy the page Bhiu1 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

you are bro EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

no I'm not Bhiu1 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

yes you are, if you want even more proof, look at the sections of Barack Obama's presidency. EditorShane3456 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for courtesy vanishing

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

---

Hello, I would like to request a courtesy vanishing for my account. Thank you

~~~~ Montefjanton (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Where do I go to report a user???

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

---

The user I want to report is blatantly defending false information on a Wikipedia article and threatening me with a ban (final warning message) over my pursuit to get the false information off of the article 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are the person who made this edit and the related edits, it would appear that the warnings to you were appropriate. The provided citation indicates suicide by hanging is appropriate. If you think the provided citation (WP:CITE) does not meet our criteria for reliable sources (WP:RS), you should bring that up on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

We mean that the provided citation is appropriate. We do not mean that suicide by hanging is appropriate. We the Wikipedia community would tend to advise against suicide by hanging, or indeed by any other means.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sulli's death was never factually confirmed to be suicide by hanging. Anyone can do a search and see that her cause of death via hanging is not listed by multiple reputable sources 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

bringing it up on the article's talk page is a vain attempt as "topics" on that page can ignored for years with no actual progress to be done about them 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I would add that if the source is accurately summarized, but you feel it is in error, that is something you need to take up with the source itself. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

my problem is on the Wikipedia article about "Sulli" namely her cause of death. She is a pretty famous person in South Korea and if her death was confirmed as by hanging then it would be guaranteed that her cause of death would be listed as such across multiple sources but instead that is not the case at all. Instead the info listing her cause of death is relying on ONE unconfirmed cause of death, while multiple confirmed sources list her death as simply being "suicide" with no actual mention of in what way did she kill herself. 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN is not the place for content disputes. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

More help comes here than any Wikipedia article talk page sees 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a discussion that you should have on the talk page- how much weight the source should be given in terms of naming a cause of death. I'm not sure that your logic follows- some news outlets don't always publish exact details like that out of respect- but that's a matter for the talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

talk pages are basically useless in regards to old articles 2601:441:8400:9760:F593:3484:2FAC:6FA6 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That still doesn't give you license to remove sourced content simply because you dispute the source's provenance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The number of actual reputable sources confirming that Sulli's death wasn't by hanging (by not saying that it was by hanging) far outnumber the one unconfirmed article saying she hung herself 2601:441:8400:9760:3A0A:A21F:4550:774F (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

2601:441:8400:9760::, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is an inappropriate use of WP:AN. --Yamla (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin) I recommend you look at WP:DR and consider pursuing a more appropriate form of dispute resolution for a content concern if you feel the Talk page won't help...though several options there will still encourage you to start with the Talk page, and you likely should do so. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Then try some WP:APPNOTEing to the talkpage discussion you start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Subject

Request to create an account – IP range block issue

• • Message:** Hello, I am trying to create a Wikipedia account, but I received a message saying that my IP range has been blocked due to abuse. I believe this block is not related to me personally, as I have never edited Wikipedia before. I am a genuine user and would like to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Kindly review my request and allow me to create an account from my current IP address or provide me with an alternative way to proceed.

Thank you for your understanding. 2402:8100:2744:C53E:6735:C225:37A1:B51 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Request an account. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It was just meant to be a block from a single page, but account creation was disabled, which may have been an error. @Ohnoitsjamie: as the blocking admin.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the "block account creation" was not intentional; I've removed that flag. Apologies for that, you should be able to create an account now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Expired editnotices

Is there a list of categories etc. that are part of an administrator or maintenance category to be 'watched', if such a thing exists or such a maintenance system, is this category Category:Expired editnotices included in it? I see there are articles from 2022/2023 etc. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Closure review request: Talk:Acupuncture RfC (closed 12 August 2025)

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

---

This request is to review a closure made within ~1 hour of posting, before substantial discussion could occur, on the grounds of RFCNEUTRAL and “previously discussed” without links to such prior discussion. I have prepared a fully neutralized opening statement and precise before/after diff, with MEDRS-compliant sourcing, so the RfC can be reopened and evaluated on its merits.

RfC closure review request at Talk:Acupuncture#RfC:_Balanced_lead_wording_reflecting_both_mainstream_criticism_and_MEDRS_efficacy_findings

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

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

User requesting review: Chanoah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemiauchenia&diff=prev&oldid=1305688430

Reasoning: Closure occurred in ~1 hour citing RFCNEUTRAL and “previously discussed” without links to any directly relevant prior discussion. I’m proposing reopening with a neutralized opening and a precise before/after diff grounded in MEDRS sources so the merits can be evaluated.

Closer (Hemiauchenia)

Non-participants

• (edit conflict) Endorse regardless of any other factors, the below hatted text shows that even the proposer concedes the initial draft was non-neutral. RfCs often represent an enormous investment of community time. Getting them wrong from the opening statement makes it far more likely that the investment will be wasted. Separately, it's quite curious that a new editor with 49 edits has already learned so much about our policies and guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants

Discussion

• I've  Blocked Chanoah (talk · contribs) indefinitely for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions on Talk:Acupuncture with obviously LLM-generated comments. Chanoah's RfC statement, posted in Special:Diff/1305560563, was also LLM-generated. — Newslinger talk 15:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hatting Chanoah's proposed RfC changes to bring it into compliance with RFCNEUTRAL, which is not something this review request covers. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed revised opening (RFCNEUTRAL-compliant)

Some editors have expressed concern that the current lead wording in Acupuncture may not fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:MEDRS. Specifically, there is a question about whether the sources currently cited, and the way they are summarized, reflect the highest-quality available evidence and maintain appropriate neutrality in describing the state of scientific consensus.

Proposal: Replace the current lead sentence with a revised version that maintains the mainstream scientific-consensus view while also reflecting MEDRS-compliant literature that reports measurable effects for certain conditions.

• Do the proposed sources meet WP:MEDRS?
• Does the proposed wording better comply with WP:NPOV?
• Does it improve WP:V by making sourcing for key claims clearer?

Proposed diff package

Before: > Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;[4][5] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge,[6] and it has been characterized as quackery.[c]

After (proposed): > Acupuncture is considered a pseudoscience by most scientists because its traditional explanations are not based on established scientific knowledge; nonetheless, systematic reviews, including high-quality meta-analyses, have reported measurable effects for certain conditions such as some types of pain and nausea, though interpretation of these findings remains contested.

Just to clarify: this request is about process only — specifically, whether the closure met WP:RFCNEUTRAL and whether it was premature given the ~1 hour duration — not the merits of the content change itself. Per WP:AN scope, I’m asking only for review of the closure. If reopening here is not preferred, I’m happy to refile the RfC with the neutralized opening through the appropriate venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanoah (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Chanoah (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Caesar DePaço afd

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço is nearing a week. Anyone feel like climbing this particular Everest when the time is right? 158 editors and almost 200 000 bytes atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Good luck to the admin who manages to wade through that. Knitsey (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

On the plus-side, it's less than half the size of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, this one isn’t that hard. I’d do it, but someone would throw a fit about this being too important for a NAC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that this looks like a civil AfD, so the closer won't get their head bit off by the "losers". The bad news is that 1) It's huuuge, 2) there are at least five different proposals that are addressed, some well, and some only fragmentarily, as some are introduced later in the discussion: a) Delete because the article is censored (with several underlying different reasons behind individuals' !votes to delete): this is the opening proposal, b) Delete because the subject is not notable, c) Add a banner with some text about the issue (and there are several different banners introduced at different phases in the conversation, with earlier commentators not having seen nor commented on the later banners), d) blank the article (with a banner), and e) Extended Confirmed protect the article so new editors are protected from falling into legal trouble.

I'm involved, having !voted, so I can't close it. Aw shucks! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm comfortable closing, but it looks like we're still a few hours off from a full 7 days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to reading your closing statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And we've had one reverted NAC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind looking at it as well when the time comes, though Rosguill has first dibs. :) 331dot (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you 2 can team up? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with whoever is available taking up the close after the second relist period. As Compassionate727 notes, despite the case's novelty and traffic, the outcome looks fairly straightforward at the moment, other than the likely need for page protection to be applied. On the other hand, a few editors have specifically asked for a relist and further discussion, so I don't think there's any harm in allowing that to continue for another week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

SECOND RELIST PERIOD!!!??? Please tell me I heard that wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I misspoke. I meant after the relist that is currently underway, which in my mind became "second" because it came after the initial mandated week. Trout for lunch I suppose. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Because an administrative action is potentially in the mix (EC protection), I believe an administrative closure is best, though I do appreciate your offer and this has nothing to do with your skill at closing, only the possibility that the closer needs to do an administrator-type action. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

There used to be a time when roaming administrators could feel comfortable jumping into any XFD that they felt they were uninvolved in, and closing it with a simple two-word rationale "No consensus" if it had dragged on for long enough. We have plenty of legacy admins from those days when that sort of outcome was more commonly accepted. But these days, it seems like the essay-length closure has become somewhat of a requirement, especially on matters like this where the community is so deeply entrenched in this matter that a more comprehensive rationale is necessary. That said, I don't know how we codify that into admin policy or guidelines. Is there anything stopping an admin from just closing this discussion without a justification of how they evaluated consensus? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Fear of disapproval and questioning of competence? Spirit of WP:ADMINEXPECT? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The close will get challenged regardless of how long it is, but if it's obviously inadequate, said admin will also, separately, have to defend their conduct. That's no fun. Also, this is the sort of close that might get media attention, so there's something to be said for putting a little thought into it, even if the outcome is no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I may be an optimist now, but IMO a well-written close could very well survive a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, perhaps even avoid it entirely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The outcome here is relatively obvious. Someone will inevitably complain, given how passionate many are, but I don’t expect a serious challenge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I write lengthy closing statements for my own benefit, to ensure that I’ve truly considered all the relevant arguments and reached the right conclusion. If I consider the outcome obvious, I often won’t write one, even if I expect it to be controversial. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• CaptainEek has relisted the discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. Apparently comments from 160+ editors wasn't enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed that relisting was ridiculous; there was clearly enough input to close there. And we generally are way to keen to relist discussions that didn't need relisting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Relists aren’t mandatory holds. Anyone can close this at any time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see my relist has been controversial. That was not my intent. The AfD had taken on the nature of a policy discussion, and the comments were still rolling in. The discussion seems like it will set a precedent and probably be seen by the press and the Portuguese courts, so cutting it off prematurely seemed unwise. But it could be closed before the end of this relist period if folks feel that I messed up here.

  I would be happy to be part of a panel close with @331dot and @Rosguill. Alternatively, I have a draft close written that I could implement sometimes today, with a bit more work. Or I can sit this one out if folks prefer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see this as an AfD, no more. The policy questions should not be answered in the close. You can see all the angst about proper notification, how the question was framed, etc. And some of the policy questions were introduced late to the discussion, so it's a mess. To me, the AfD should be closed delete/not delete. The banner is simply an editorial decision and can be handled on the article talk page. Protection may be just a BLP CTOP or ordinary admin decision. Blanking is a policy decision and should be handled like we do when we change other policies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is an extraordinary situation and requires an equally extraordinary closure. Any close that doesn't directly address the myriad proposals that were discussed in good-faith would be unwise, to put it mildly. XFD discussions don't typically deal with issues relating to court judgements or office actions, but absent other forums such as an RFC, this discussion has basically morphed into that for all involved. In addition to being included at CENT, it's also been linked from multiple locations (such as the village pump) where one might go looking for a way to voice their desires on what to do one way or the other. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  CaptainEek I would be willing to be part of a panel. If you'd like, you could email me your draft as a starting point. I do have some preliminary thoughts about the matter, though I'm still going over it. I have a feeling the closure process might take a bit. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know about necessarily needing an extraordinary closure, but I agree on WP:NOTBURO grounds that the outcome can include consensus for actions that aren't traditionally taken up at AFD (although FWIW it's not rare to see AFD participants weigh in on protecting an article, generally in a WP:SALT context). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe I oversold it, but "extraordinary" to me meaning a thoughtful and deliberative reading of the discussion, and not simply a Delete/Not Delete with all the other points discussed getting shuffled off to other forums simply to be re-litigated again (which it's already likely to happen anyways, but the less of that the better). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I won't object to the possibility of the closer(s) making a ruling on yes/no/no consensus if there should be a banner/protection etc. If that happens it happens, and if people challenge it or part of it, that happens too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. Or no consensus, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think we should put a notification at the top of the AFD page mentioning that the closure is in the process of being considered. Otherwise another admin or editor might just come by and close the discussion while you all are in the process of putting some thought and care into how the discussion should resolve itself. But frankly, our organizational system for templates I find mystifying some maybe some smarter editor know the appropriate template that should be used to reveal that the AFD shouldn't be closed prematurely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz, @Rosguill, @CaptainEek, @331dot if it is your intent to close soon, I'd use {{closing}} and maybe protect the page until you're done. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I did end up emailing 331dot to start discussing a close. I won't stop anyone from freezing the AfD or putting an appropriate template, but I'm out on business for the afternoon so I don't have time to sit down at my desk and do it myself :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how "shortly" we will be. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is an |estimate= parameter that is free-form text where you can type what you want (such as within an hour). I'd suggest {{subst:closing|closer=[[User:CaptainEek|]] and [[User:331dot|]]|plural=true|estimate=the next 24 hours}} at the top and full protecting the page. Obviously if Rosguill is assisting, add them as well to the list. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  That's helpful. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you (plural) for taking this on! And if someone can update User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest AfDs so we can see how it measures up to the other gigantic afd:s, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:Expired editnotices

Is there a list of categories etc. that are part of an administrator or maintenance category to be 'watched', if such a thing exists or such a maintenance system, is this category Category:Expired editnotices included in it? I see there are articles from 2022/2023 etc. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Closure review request: Talk:Acupuncture RfC (closed 12 August 2025)

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

---

This request is to review a closure made within ~1 hour of posting, before substantial discussion could occur, on the grounds of RFCNEUTRAL and “previously discussed” without links to such prior discussion. I have prepared a fully neutralized opening statement and precise before/after diff, with MEDRS-compliant sourcing, so the RfC can be reopened and evaluated on its merits.

RfC closure review request at Talk:Acupuncture#RfC:_Balanced_lead_wording_reflecting_both_mainstream_criticism_and_MEDRS_efficacy_findings

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

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

User requesting review: Chanoah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemiauchenia&diff=prev&oldid=1305688430

Reasoning: Closure occurred in ~1 hour citing RFCNEUTRAL and “previously discussed” without links to any directly relevant prior discussion. I’m proposing reopening with a neutralized opening and a precise before/after diff grounded in MEDRS sources so the merits can be evaluated.

Closer (Hemiauchenia)

Non-participants

• (edit conflict) Endorse regardless of any other factors, the below hatted text shows that even the proposer concedes the initial draft was non-neutral. RfCs often represent an enormous investment of community time. Getting them wrong from the opening statement makes it far more likely that the investment will be wasted. Separately, it's quite curious that a new editor with 49 edits has already learned so much about our policies and guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants

Discussion

• I've  Blocked Chanoah (talk · contribs) indefinitely for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions on Talk:Acupuncture with obviously LLM-generated comments. Chanoah's RfC statement, posted in Special:Diff/1305560563, was also LLM-generated. — Newslinger talk 15:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hatting Chanoah's proposed RfC changes to bring it into compliance with RFCNEUTRAL, which is not something this review request covers. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed revised opening (RFCNEUTRAL-compliant)

Some editors have expressed concern that the current lead wording in Acupuncture may not fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:MEDRS. Specifically, there is a question about whether the sources currently cited, and the way they are summarized, reflect the highest-quality available evidence and maintain appropriate neutrality in describing the state of scientific consensus.

Proposal: Replace the current lead sentence with a revised version that maintains the mainstream scientific-consensus view while also reflecting MEDRS-compliant literature that reports measurable effects for certain conditions.

• Do the proposed sources meet WP:MEDRS?
• Does the proposed wording better comply with WP:NPOV?
• Does it improve WP:V by making sourcing for key claims clearer?

Proposed diff package

Before: > Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;[4][5] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge,[6] and it has been characterized as quackery.[c]

After (proposed): > Acupuncture is considered a pseudoscience by most scientists because its traditional explanations are not based on established scientific knowledge; nonetheless, systematic reviews, including high-quality meta-analyses, have reported measurable effects for certain conditions such as some types of pain and nausea, though interpretation of these findings remains contested.

Just to clarify: this request is about process only — specifically, whether the closure met WP:RFCNEUTRAL and whether it was premature given the ~1 hour duration — not the merits of the content change itself. Per WP:AN scope, I’m asking only for review of the closure. If reopening here is not preferred, I’m happy to refile the RfC with the neutralized opening through the appropriate venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanoah (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Chanoah (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Caesar DePaço afd

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço is nearing a week. Anyone feel like climbing this particular Everest when the time is right? 158 editors and almost 200 000 bytes atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Good luck to the admin who manages to wade through that. Knitsey (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

On the plus-side, it's less than half the size of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, this one isn’t that hard. I’d do it, but someone would throw a fit about this being too important for a NAC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that this looks like a civil AfD, so the closer won't get their head bit off by the "losers". The bad news is that 1) It's huuuge, 2) there are at least five different proposals that are addressed, some well, and some only fragmentarily, as some are introduced later in the discussion: a) Delete because the article is censored (with several underlying different reasons behind individuals' !votes to delete): this is the opening proposal, b) Delete because the subject is not notable, c) Add a banner with some text about the issue (and there are several different banners introduced at different phases in the conversation, with earlier commentators not having seen nor commented on the later banners), d) blank the article (with a banner), and e) Extended Confirmed protect the article so new editors are protected from falling into legal trouble.

I'm involved, having !voted, so I can't close it. Aw shucks! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm comfortable closing, but it looks like we're still a few hours off from a full 7 days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to reading your closing statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And we've had one reverted NAC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind looking at it as well when the time comes, though Rosguill has first dibs. :) 331dot (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you 2 can team up? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with whoever is available taking up the close after the second relist period. As Compassionate727 notes, despite the case's novelty and traffic, the outcome looks fairly straightforward at the moment, other than the likely need for page protection to be applied. On the other hand, a few editors have specifically asked for a relist and further discussion, so I don't think there's any harm in allowing that to continue for another week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

SECOND RELIST PERIOD!!!??? Please tell me I heard that wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I misspoke. I meant after the relist that is currently underway, which in my mind became "second" because it came after the initial mandated week. Trout for lunch I suppose. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Because an administrative action is potentially in the mix (EC protection), I believe an administrative closure is best, though I do appreciate your offer and this has nothing to do with your skill at closing, only the possibility that the closer needs to do an administrator-type action. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

There used to be a time when roaming administrators could feel comfortable jumping into any XFD that they felt they were uninvolved in, and closing it with a simple two-word rationale "No consensus" if it had dragged on for long enough. We have plenty of legacy admins from those days when that sort of outcome was more commonly accepted. But these days, it seems like the essay-length closure has become somewhat of a requirement, especially on matters like this where the community is so deeply entrenched in this matter that a more comprehensive rationale is necessary. That said, I don't know how we codify that into admin policy or guidelines. Is there anything stopping an admin from just closing this discussion without a justification of how they evaluated consensus? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Fear of disapproval and questioning of competence? Spirit of WP:ADMINEXPECT? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The close will get challenged regardless of how long it is, but if it's obviously inadequate, said admin will also, separately, have to defend their conduct. That's no fun. Also, this is the sort of close that might get media attention, so there's something to be said for putting a little thought into it, even if the outcome is no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I may be an optimist now, but IMO a well-written close could very well survive a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, perhaps even avoid it entirely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The outcome here is relatively obvious. Someone will inevitably complain, given how passionate many are, but I don’t expect a serious challenge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I write lengthy closing statements for my own benefit, to ensure that I’ve truly considered all the relevant arguments and reached the right conclusion. If I consider the outcome obvious, I often won’t write one, even if I expect it to be controversial. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• CaptainEek has relisted the discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. Apparently comments from 160+ editors wasn't enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed that relisting was ridiculous; there was clearly enough input to close there. And we generally are way to keen to relist discussions that didn't need relisting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Relists aren’t mandatory holds. Anyone can close this at any time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see my relist has been controversial. That was not my intent. The AfD had taken on the nature of a policy discussion, and the comments were still rolling in. The discussion seems like it will set a precedent and probably be seen by the press and the Portuguese courts, so cutting it off prematurely seemed unwise. But it could be closed before the end of this relist period if folks feel that I messed up here.

  I would be happy to be part of a panel close with @331dot and @Rosguill. Alternatively, I have a draft close written that I could implement sometimes today, with a bit more work. Or I can sit this one out if folks prefer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see this as an AfD, no more. The policy questions should not be answered in the close. You can see all the angst about proper notification, how the question was framed, etc. And some of the policy questions were introduced late to the discussion, so it's a mess. To me, the AfD should be closed delete/not delete. The banner is simply an editorial decision and can be handled on the article talk page. Protection may be just a BLP CTOP or ordinary admin decision. Blanking is a policy decision and should be handled like we do when we change other policies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is an extraordinary situation and requires an equally extraordinary closure. Any close that doesn't directly address the myriad proposals that were discussed in good-faith would be unwise, to put it mildly. XFD discussions don't typically deal with issues relating to court judgements or office actions, but absent other forums such as an RFC, this discussion has basically morphed into that for all involved. In addition to being included at CENT, it's also been linked from multiple locations (such as the village pump) where one might go looking for a way to voice their desires on what to do one way or the other. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  CaptainEek I would be willing to be part of a panel. If you'd like, you could email me your draft as a starting point. I do have some preliminary thoughts about the matter, though I'm still going over it. I have a feeling the closure process might take a bit. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know about necessarily needing an extraordinary closure, but I agree on WP:NOTBURO grounds that the outcome can include consensus for actions that aren't traditionally taken up at AFD (although FWIW it's not rare to see AFD participants weigh in on protecting an article, generally in a WP:SALT context). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe I oversold it, but "extraordinary" to me meaning a thoughtful and deliberative reading of the discussion, and not simply a Delete/Not Delete with all the other points discussed getting shuffled off to other forums simply to be re-litigated again (which it's already likely to happen anyways, but the less of that the better). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I won't object to the possibility of the closer(s) making a ruling on yes/no/no consensus if there should be a banner/protection etc. If that happens it happens, and if people challenge it or part of it, that happens too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. Or no consensus, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think we should put a notification at the top of the AFD page mentioning that the closure is in the process of being considered. Otherwise another admin or editor might just come by and close the discussion while you all are in the process of putting some thought and care into how the discussion should resolve itself. But frankly, our organizational system for templates I find mystifying some maybe some smarter editor know the appropriate template that should be used to reveal that the AFD shouldn't be closed prematurely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz, @Rosguill, @CaptainEek, @331dot if it is your intent to close soon, I'd use {{closing}} and maybe protect the page until you're done. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I did end up emailing 331dot to start discussing a close. I won't stop anyone from freezing the AfD or putting an appropriate template, but I'm out on business for the afternoon so I don't have time to sit down at my desk and do it myself :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how "shortly" we will be. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is an |estimate= parameter that is free-form text where you can type what you want (such as within an hour). I'd suggest {{subst:closing|closer=[[User:CaptainEek|]] and [[User:331dot|]]|plural=true|estimate=the next 24 hours}} at the top and full protecting the page. Obviously if Rosguill is assisting, add them as well to the list. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  That's helpful. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you (plural) for taking this on! And if someone can update User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest AfDs so we can see how it measures up to the other gigantic afd:s, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Celeby7529

• Celeby7529 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Celeby7529 has made 8 edits in total so far, 7 of them consecutive edits specifically targeting my contributions, including same-day reverts made within minutes. The pattern appears to have originated from a Talk page discussion on Jet Li’s article, where Celeby7529, with whom I had no prior interaction, made mocking personal remarks about a typo of mine (“establshed”).

Enrico Chou (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify a user when you report them here. I will do so momentarily. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I hope you're able to take something away from this experience, namely that you shouldn't mock belittle other editors. For one, it's rude. For another, well, sometimes people give harder than they get. In the meantime, I'm off to file an SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

SPI complete and all socks blocked and tagged.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

What do we do about vandalism and possible COI edit from a House of Representatives IP?

This one;.[55] Looking at their talk page, I see, for instance, that their latest vandalism at Mary Miller (politician) isn't commented on but earlier instances have been. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, what's the context that establishes this as vandalism? It's a single edit, one that only removes a single character, bearing no edit summary, so I think it could easily be a mistake and not vandalism. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how changing a date can be a mistake, but should we be concerned at all about COI? Doug Weller talk 16:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if the person changing the date was Mary Miller herself, I think we can hardly say that correcting a birthdate is a COI problem, barring some kind of exceptional circumstance. -- asilvering (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Although the date has been given as the 27th since 2020[56], at least according to congress.gov[57] it should be the 7th. Could be the IP was trying to legitimately correct the mistake. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I should have checked. I'm too suspicious of IPs changing birthdates without summaries. Abd correcting it isn't a COI violation. I do see quite a few that I suspect are done by the subject or staffers. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, and the type of edit it was, it wasn't hard to be suspicious of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Here's that Congressional IP address engaging in actual political campaigning. Is that allowed? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not prohibited, but I can't say I like it, either, so I reverted (as a normal editorial action). -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Latin American politics TBAN appeal

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

---

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

There are three main reasons why I would like to appeal the topic ban: it is too broad and has unintended consequences, the measures taken by the Arbitration Committee have been effective in addressing the issue, and new information about the dispute was disclosed after the ANI discussion was closed (specifically WMrapids' sockpuppetry). I feel that a Catch-22 happened because of this: the ANI closing admin commented that the ArbCom could decide whether to keep or vacate the topic ban,[58] but at the same time the ArbCom commented that extraordinary circumstances were needed to override a community decision.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I have had virtually no other disputes as big as this one with any other editor than for over a year, either here or any other projects, and the only exception has been WMrapids, who incidentally was indefinitely blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia after these interactions ([59]). What I can do in the meantime is learn from my mistake and improve my interactions in the future with other editors: after these interactions afterwards, I requested a voluntary interaction ban in Wikidata weeks before it was implemented: [60] If this is still a concern, this appeal is unrelated to the interaction ban, which has to be appealed to the ArbCom, and only deals with the topic ban.

I have gone out of my way and beyond to respect the current topic ban in every one of my edits. This means avoiding changes remotely related to the politics or as small as fixing typos, adding diacritical accents, or categorizing. I have self reverted the changes the few times that I've realized could be a violation thereof shortly after ([61]), regardless of how small. I have asked to the closing admin when I have been in doubt about the scope: the last time, I asked if expanding an article about a 19th century boat could be considered a violation of the ban:[62], and they agreed that it could:[63]; you can't be too careful. After creating Category:Members of the Venezuelan Academy of Medicine, I didn't populate it because I realized that all of its entries in the English Wikipedia were either Ministries of Health or related to politics at some point, and as such I wasn't able to save it from deletion. Twice have I have been asked in my talk page for help in related topics (1, 2), and twice have I declined.

I have stricken my comment in the Ryan Vasquez's deletion discussion ([64]) once I realized about this relation that you mention, hoping to comply with the topic ban as best as possible, but this should be a perfect example of how broad and how reaching it is: Ryan Vasquez is a musician with no relations with politics whatsoever other than being "the first Venezuelan on the Municipal Council for Cultural Policies in Humaitá, Amazonas". While the ban is in place, this is exactly the kind of edits that I regularly avoid and will continue to seek avoiding. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also observe that NoonIcarus is editing at a rate of >1,500 edits per month in July 2025 (about 3x the rate of en.wiki for July 2025), and I believe a substantial portion on es.Wiki are Venezuelan politics. In 2023 on es.Wiki he was only making 500 edits/month and 1,000 edits/month on en.Wiki. So if he comes back, I believe we can expect to see a lot of these kinds of biased edits compromising our Venezuelan political articles moving from es.Wiki to en.Wiki.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC) [corrected 08:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

NoonIcarus's response here is a good example of why allowing the topic ban to be lifted will be an issue. When confronted by problems of his edits, rather than admit to the problems, correct them, and not repeat them, he doubles-down and misrepresents what he has done and misrepresents the valid complaint by the editor. Obfuscation to avoid accountability:

(1) He accuses me of saying Lopez never filed any complaint. But I did not say that. I was well aware that the second source mentioned the complaint by Lopez. The problem that I clearly stated is that NoonIcarus changed the order of events of the second article. That article focuses first and mostly on the Attorney General's investigation of Lopez for allegedly attacking an airport guard (title + 4 paragraphs) and then mentions more briefly that Lopez claimed that the guards attacked him first (1 paragraph).

That article makes it sound like Lopez responded to the allegations with his own allegations. A "he said; she said." Nowhere does the second article say that Lopez first filed the complaint against the guards and then the Attorney General "responded" by charging Lopez--implying retaliation. NoonIcarus changed the wiki-text to say something that was not in the cited sources, and that's a problem.

(2) Adds confusion here by saying “The Washington Post opinion piece doesn't mention anything about the airport incident”, when it is used as the first reference for that incident. It says: “Last week, when he returned to Caracas from Washington, López was detained and assaulted by a squad from the state intelligence service.”

(3) As for the attributions for opinions, there is no question he removed them. Just look closely at the diff. If you don't speak Spanish, run the diffs through Google translate. NoonIcarus must by now know that opinions should be attributed per WP:NEWSOPED. He deleted the attributions that were there, but makes it sound like he did not. Also disruptive.

This combination of denying the valid complaints, distracting and confusing readers, and boring them with TL;DR, he is disruptive and wastes editors' time.--David Tornheim (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Oh I know. I was strongly supportive of the topic ban at the time it was applied. But this is a case where I'm willing to extend some (limited) WP:ROPE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a 1RR restriction: Diffs/conduct from over a year ago seem like a poor argument for keeping a TBAN in place, especially if its cost is losing lots of possible work on Venezuelan political history. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support with a 1RR restriction per Allan Nonymous. I'm all for second chances, with a long leash. BD2412 T 00:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note, this discussion appears to have stalled at what I would gauge as an absence of consensus to lift the existing TBAN. Absent further participation, I would suggest this be closed as failed and the applicant be advised to try again in six months. BD2412 T 18:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Request to remove personal info

Hello,

My username is Iman_namdarsehat. My name appears in [Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest book/Archive_15](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest_book/Archive_15). I would like my name to be removed from this page as it contains personal information.

Thank you for your assistance. Iman namdarsehat (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You signed using your username. If your username is your real name, you've already made it public. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

If what you want is to have your account deleted, please follow the instructions at WP:VANISH. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Domm (film)

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

---

• Draft:Domm (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm sure that this needs sysop attention but I'm not sure how complicated it is.

The history is that a user who's new and likely in perfectly good faith started an article called Domm (Bangladeshi film) on 24th July, bypassing draft space and working directly in mainspace. None of the references would load, and I (wrongly) suspected it was one of those AI-generated articles where the references are fake, so I prodded it. It got deprodded so I draftified it.

It then got re-created in mainspace by the same user, and I just wonder whether that was a copy/paste re-creation that would necessitate a WP:HISTMERGE for compliance with the Terms of Use?

The re-creation got AfD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domm (Bangladeshi film), where I raised the HISTMERGE thing, but that AfD was closed as "draftify" by a user who says he missed the HISTMERGE problem. The draft is now at Draft:Domm (film).

Please will a sysop with the inclination to worry about HISTMERGE review this, and if appropriate, please will a sysop with the right amount of patience and kindness for interacting with new users who work directly in mainspace have a chat with the article starter about copy/paste?—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, I haven't notified anyone because there's no accusation of wrongdoing here.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  If there's only one author to the draft then a history merge is not legally necessary because nobody's attribution is lost. That seems to be the case here. And there are also WP:Parallel histories that would make histmerging awkward (but technically doable). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  If that's so, then all's fine. I thought that one of the versions from before the copy/paste merge had more than one author, but if I'm wrong then I'm pleased to be able to avoid the paperwork.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at the history of Draft:Domm (Bangladeshi film), there are edits by other editors in there. However, aside from one bot edit, there aren't any overlapping edits that aren't speedy-deletion tags and redirections (and thus I believe could be 'left deleted' after a histmerge). So I'll history-merge them at Draft: Domm (film).  In progress - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

   Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  As I suspected. Thank you!—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Still need that person with the patience and kindness please?—S Marshall T/C 04:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, what needs doing here? Are they still making weird copy-paste moves and I'm just not seeing them? -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not as far as I know. But cut-and-paste moves are something a good faith user can easily do when new because they aren't obviously wrong, and they can create a lot of needless work for sysops, so I think this needs raising with the user in a way that educates without being mean or accusing. Ten years ago I'd have done it myself and screwed it up, because self-knowledge came late in life for me. Nowadays I know I'm not a patient man, and neither am I good with new users, so this isn't a task that I'm well suited to. It's best if I volunteer in other ways.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you could template them. {{uw-c&pmove}} is the one you'd be looking for. —Cryptic 22:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly my thinking is that it's typically not worth explaining something like this on the first instance, for WP:BITE reasons. They can see that other editors have jumped in to fix their edits. If they have seen that, they'll likely feel condescended to or bitten if someone gets on their case about it. I'd rather give them a chance to learn from example before showing up to say "dude you screwed up". I can say it kindly but that only takes so much bite out of it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Review my revdel

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

---

I recently deleted some offensive material from WP:VPW, which several editors have questioned the necessity of. So bringing it here for review. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As an admittedly very new admin, and therefore not an expert on the exact intricacies of revision deletions, I don't see a reason here for such a large-scale use of the tool? The comment itself was, imo, inappropriate, but not quite of the level requiring such a revdel? I'll defer to admins with more experience, but I do want to give my 2 cents. CoconutOctopus talk 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't a needed use of revdel. The comment was inappropriate and the redaction was correct, but the revdel was unnecessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations referred to in WP:RD2. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If only a couple of revisions would be rev-del'd, I could kind of see doing that, but the number of revisions needing rev-del'd to take it out of the history was disruptive and should be reserved for really bad stuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Was [65] the only comment that needed redaction? If so, I would be inclined to undo the revision deletion here. As far as the line between "ordinary incivility" and "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive content" goes, it is a matter of judgment sometimes, so I don't fault RoySmith for erring on the side of revdel. For me, the line is crossed when the content either (1) includes any extremely offensive slurs (e.g. those targeted at particular groups or classes of people), and/or (2) is harassment targeted towards a specific, identifiable individual, and/or (3) is unsourced WP:BLP content that implies a specific living individual committed a serious crime or otherwise did something highly unethical. Here, none of these factors are true, so I would consider this the kind of "ordinary" incivility that is explicitly excluded by WP:RD2. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This is such a nothingburger I at first assumed I was looking at the wrong part of the diff. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Revdeleting attacks aimed at people who can still read them afterwards doesn't accomplish a whole lot. —Cryptic 20:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate Roy's action to remove the offensive comment from public view, I agree that this is run-of-the-mill online misbehavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It is sad that people find this sort of thing in any way acceptable, but is clear that consensus is to restore these edits. I can't see my way to being the agent of restoring this to public visibility, so somebody should go ahead and do it. RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone finds it acceptable. It's a common slur that doesn't rise to the level of deleting 150+130+ revisions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That is my point earlier. The number of revisions weighs into the decision when the edit in question isn't absolutely dreadful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith, this might be "too little, too late" but I agree with your action. It is completely inappropriate content. I don't know whether or not I, as an admin, would revision delete it though which is why I didn't weigh in earlier. If that seems contradictory, well, that's me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is arguing that it was an appropriate or acceptable thing to say. Rather, people are arguing that it is run-of-the-mill offensiveness that does not require over 130 diffs to be literally expunged from the page history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've undone the revdel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Love Is Blind (TV Series)

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

---

• Love Is Blind (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Love Is Blind (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Love Is Blind (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Love Is Blind: USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Perhaps someone could take a look at the above. It looks like a user was trying to create some new articles related to the TV series Love Is Blind but wasn't sure how to title the articles. Per WP:NCDAB, though, it appears "Love Is Blind (TV Series)" should actually be "Love is Blind (TV series)" (i.e., "series" should be treated as a common noun). I'm not sure how to "fix" this if the page indeed needs to be moved because "Love Is Blind (TV series)" already exists as a redirect to "Love Is Blind (TV Series)". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Vandalism in Bonda language Fdom5997 keep reverting back and forth

User contributions for Fdom5997 Fdom5997 not listing backing sources, has made seven edits that removed or changed the IPA consonant chart of the Remo(Bonda) language. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Fdom5997 strikes again, this time they are moving from pages to pages, targeting Korku language, Gta' language, Santali language,...etc with vandalism. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Personal harassment in [66] Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No, a lot of the info you changed was wrong, and also uncited. The IPA symbols were also correct (I read the sources) but you changed them not using another source. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Manaaki teatuareo, @Fdom5997: this belongs at WP:ANI, not AN. Both of you can also take this as a formal warning against edit-warring; a good-faith edit you disagree with is not vandalism and is not exempt from rules like WP:3RR. Giraffer (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Modification of Arbitration Committee Enforcement Procedures

There is currently a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Proposed decision#Word limit restriction (discretionary) added to contentious topic restrictions standard set that would modify Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures. This notification is provided per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Willbb234 unblock request

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

---

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not going to vote yet, but I do have thoughts. I am generally supportive of second chances, especially when the block is for what I might call egregious yet banal incivility. This is the kind of thing I think most people can learn to not do. However, I am concerned by the fact that he needed to post three unblock requests just now to realize he needed to address it; that's in addition to his previous attempts at an unban. It makes me wonder if he truly does understand, or is just trying to say what it takes to get unbanned. I'd like to hear others' thoughts before I commit to a side. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still weighing my position. @Willbb234: I would like to hear an answer to Kingsif's question before I decide. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm a big believer in ROPE but I'm concerned at an unblock request where the requester can't recall why they were blocked. If it was such a forgettable incident, then it would be easy for circumstances to repeat themselves. I think this "amnesia" is a way of not taking responsibility for whatever actions were taken or words said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I did in 2024, and more generally I'm against indeffing established users wor one-off incidents so don't think an indef was justified in the first place (which is a fringe minority position, and I know nearly no other admin will agree with me here). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. They got a history of edit warring (such as 1 2) in contentious topic areas. Also, Liz's point of forgetting when or why they were blocked doesn't help is spot on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

  Apologies for not getting to your question, I wanted to take a moment to think about my response. I branded my comment as a joke, but later realised that this was incorrect and inappropriate and so not a valid line of argument. This was also rightly pointed out by other users. In the future and if I am unblocked, I understand that I am on a last chance situation, and so I would be very careful about how communicate with others, and ensure that comments are appropriate. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

when you have made more then one appeal. that's where things get murky for me. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Willbb234 asked me to copy over the following comment:

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

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

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

• I disagree. If I did an action that caused me to be indefinitely blocked, I think it would be seered into my memory and I'd be thinking about it for a long time afterwards (What did I do? What should I have said? What could have been done differently? etc. etc.) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not everyone centers their life on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: - speaking from experience, being indefinitely blocked was so unpleasant that it is still painful to revisit the memories or circumstances. I was quickly unblocked, and for me after that it’s the opposite of what you described. starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support lets give them some rope--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support granting Will an unblock, with the understanding that this is a final chance. Their apology seems sincere and they have solved the issues from their previous appeals with this one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for the momentVery weak support I don't find Willbb234's response to be satisfactory. We cannot see whatever it was that Willbb234 said that led to their initial block because it was apparently bad enough to get revision-deleted but we can see they tried to defend it as "just a joke." This is a defense that I find especially inappropriate to the point of being contrary to the intent of the statement as a defense as it's grounded in a bad-faith renunciation of one's own words without actually walking anything back. As Willbb234's only response after I raised this question was to plead they don't remember specifics I can't say with confidence that they wouldn't respond the same next time. I'm also concerned about the edit warring that REAL_MOUSE_IRL brought up in their oppose !vote. If the editor responds in a satisfactory way to the "just joking" part of their initial defense I might possibly consider WP:ROPE but, in that case, I'd propose topic bans from AMPOLI, GENSEX and BLP should be applied as part of a trial return. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  ETA: I saw the "enlightening followup" that @REAL MOUSE IRL identified below and this strengthens my opposition. If they cannot remember saying that to another editor and if they have nothing to say about it being "just joking" then I think we don't have confidence we won't see another heated tirade. Wikipedia is not Reddit or Twitter. People should not be saying such things to other editors, full stop, and to avoid any contrition under the veil of forgetting strikes me as insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  So I have changed my !vote to very weak support on the basis of the reply to my "just joking" question. I will admit that this line of defense really bothers me so seeing a renunciation of it was very critical to my decision. I find myself quite divided between the points raised by REAL MOUSE IRL and by Ivanvector - both of whom have made very good points in this discussion. I think, on the balance, I am applying a similar standard here to what I have in other appeal discussions currently active on this page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. With that being said, just as in the case above where I supported with a 1RR restriction as a form of assurance against a return to old patterns, I think assurance against a return to this sort of inflammatory behavior should also be supplied. Having thought about this for some time I think the best form for that would be to allow a return to editing but with a topic ban on BLPs. The last dispute happened because they lost their cool in a BLP discussion and so having them work on areas which might not be so heated to start would be a good way for the editor to show that they won't blow their stack and say... regrettable and deeply inappropriate things... again. I will say that, while their own comportment has no bearing on this discussion, learning that "fruitloop" was a direct reference to another editor's username rather than an epithet was significant on my reasoning here. But REAL MOUSE IRL is also correct that Wikipedia should not tolerate sexualized comments, especially when used as a personal attack in the course of an edit dispute. I would suggest that a return to such behaviour should be met with an immediate return to an indefinite block should they be unblocked as a result of this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - if you don't remember what you actually said that got you blocked, you need to go look it up before you start writing a unblock request. I wouldn't support any unblock request that didn't address what was actually said, why it was a problem (including the response to being called out for it), and how we know it won't happen again. This request is worse than last year's request IMO. You say you've learned from reflection, but that's obviously not true if you don't remember what you said that got you blocked and you didn't bother to go find out before asking to be unblocked. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Except they can't find out because the edits in question were revdelled. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This enlightening followup was brought up in the last AN thread. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They could have asked somebody to remind them what they said, before they made an unblock request. That would have helped with the alleged reflection. Or do what I did and spend five minutes clicking and reading to at least figure out the gist (the follow-up comment linked above is a big hint). Levivich (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

In my original statement I say that I had read through the incident and reminded myself. Willbb234 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Copied over from User talk:Willbb234 by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• To add some context to the remark that REAL_MOUSE_IRL dug up: Willbb234 was in a dispute with an editor Fruitloop11 at the time; the "fruitloop" comment was not the part of their comments they were blocked for. At least I assume not, but the blocking admin was run off the project by a mob a few weeks ago and I'm not going to try to bother them about it. Here is the interaction that preceded the revdeleted comment - Fruitloop11 was trying to add an unsourced derogatory description to the first sentence of a BLP and Willbb234 was (correctly) reverting them. Since that incident Fruitloop11 has earned a contentious topics alert (from me) for downplaying the significance of Elon Musk's Nazi salute and comparing the Gulf of Mexico naming dispute to Elliot Page's gender transition in a way that several people found upsetting, and more recently they've been removing descriptions of the Palestinian genocide as "anti-semitism". This seems to be a case where the wrong editor was blocked because of having made the first escalation, although trying to defend it as "just a joke" really dug the hole for them (I left them some reading material about that).

I support unblocking, as I did with the previous request. I agree with the sentiment that we don't gain anything from driving productive editors off the project forever in response to one schoolyard-bullying-level snide remark, sexual in nature though it was. The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption, and I believe this block has served that purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't think sexualized insults should ever be used on Wikipedia, regardless of how bad the insulted user's edits are. Nobody is opposing to keep them off the project forever for one remark, there is a pattern of behaviour that IMO hasn't been properly addressed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support I don't know what the comment was but Ivanvector suggests it is not of the 'inexcusable forever' type, and I do think they have probably learned the perils of personalization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  In my opinion it was quite mild, on the spectrum of sexual harassment we see here. I probably would have redacted it but not revdeleted, but I also don't think it was a misuse of revdel. They were originally blocked 2 weeks for the comment, which was likely longer than a first-time block for that offense owing to their block log. It was when they defended the comment as a joke and repeated it in a retort to a different administrator that they were indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, at the moment I'm just confused by I have read through WP:NPA and reminded myself on what constitutes a personal attack. What has that got to do with anything when the reason they were blocked was way, way past the basic definition of NPA and they know that? I'm just a bit nonplussed. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't interpret [...] while I do not remember the exact circumstances surrounding the block [...] as "I don't know why I was blocked," but rather that it was so long ago that they don't even remember the context of (circumstances surrounding) why they were angry. This unblock request appears candid and sincere, and I do not think an ongoing block is necessary to prevent them from doing this again. --tony 18:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Seems to be an isolated incident (I see some claims of a "pattern of behavior" but I don't see the evidence for it, if significant additional evidence is presented I'd likely change my opinion), the editor understands the problem and has apologized. If anything like this reoccurs they can be blocked again. Rusalkii (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Question for Willbb234 A question I had during last year's community unblock request has not had a response, so I'll ask the same thing. Willbb234's various blocks have been for different 'final straw' moments, but (and as REAL_MOUSE_IRL points out), those moments follow a pattern of behaviour that is very anti-community. When Willbb234 is asked to be accountable to the community, is when the moments that get them blocked or given 1RR restriction that they break etc. occur. So, Willbb234, how do you plan to better engage with discussion and collaborative editing - or to at least be less hostile in response if you still won't - in order to snuff out the root cause, in effect? Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support The rev-del’d edit is inexcusable but I think an opportunity to redeem himself is reasonably low-risk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Having looked at the only revdel'd edit I can see in their history...I have to agree with Ivanvector that I'm surprised this was even revdel'd. A personal attack, absolutely, but I'm honestly struggling to see it as "sexual harassment" as opposed to "crude insult". It's entirely unacceptable either way, but I'm inclined to extend some WP:ROPE here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per ROPE. I'm a fairly big believer in 2nd chances whenever reasonably possible. That said, there is a history here. So if I were Willbb234, and this request is approved, I'd make a point of treading v e r y carefully going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, per Ad Orientem and others above. BD2412 T 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note This discussion is probably ready to be closed. (I am WP:INVOLVED.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Abusing "Black Hole Cosmology" page

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Black hole cosmology

 – Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

---

User "Simple non combat" is abusing Black Hole Cosmology page, self-promoting there his own, irrelevant work. This is against the Wikipedia policy. Please intervene. Citanotable (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? Please provide the links. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the issue but here are some links:

Black hole cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Citanotable (talk · contribs)

Simple non combat (talk · contribs)

Try asking for opinions at WT:WikiProject Astronomy. This discussion should probably be at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the issue is that Simple non combat is making dozens of edits in hours, Citanotable opposes on some grounds, and both are getting into an edit war with the other with what looks like seven reverts between the two. (Can we copy and paste this over with a template added here or is there more to do?) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I moved it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:J. K. Rowling#RfC: J.K. Rowling's views on transgender issues

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

---

Would anyone care to close this RFC? It's run for over a month and comments have slowed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a dedicated noticeboard for these kinds of requests. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Template breaking

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

---

At Adrien Nunez, I tried to embed {{langx|en|Adrien Núñez, the only Dominican looking to continue advancing in March Madness}} inside {{cite web}}. Is this possible with some sort of fix?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I figured something out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Clean start (Morning277)

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

---

Thanks to Giraffer for directing me here. Thirteen years ago, I was community banned for using multiple accounts and for paid editing. The ban was for the account MooshiePorkFace but my main account was Morning277, which was also banned. I did use multiple accounts and those accounts were rightfully blocked. The ban came later, under the belief that I was the ring leader of Orange Moody which was part of the Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal. I was never actually part of Wiki-PR, but at that time Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.

I continue to advise clients, strictly off-Wiki, on how to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Since the implementation of guidelines under Paid Editing, I have instructed clients on how to make proper disclosure of their connections, using the articles for creation process, and how to request edits on article talk pages. Some clients, despite this advice, would still rather hire someone to request edits or submit drafts on their behalf. Since I have turned down these requests, I have seen clients go off and hire freelancers from Upwork to upload their project without disclosure, causing problems. I have nothing to do with those freelancers, and have had nothing to do with Wiki-PR and entities like that for a decade.

According to my block, I was supposed to use the “Ban Appeals Subcommittee” of Arbcom to have my ban lifted, but that page is inactive. As such, per Girrafer’s instruction, I am appealing here. I am happy to answer any questions about my time as Morning277 or the related accounts and provide more information about my identity if it helps facilitate this request. I will abide by any restrictions placed on editing if the ban is lifted. As I no longer have access to the Morning277 account or the email I created for it, if the ban is lifted, I would request a new account under “Clean Start.” M277FreshStart (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that I have intentionally left M277FreshStart unblocked solely for the purposes of appealing. Indeffing them to then copy over appeal comments would be a waste of time. Giraffer (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've changed the section heading to make it meaningful and unique in watchlists, etc. I'm not offering an opinion on the merits at this time, but for those not familiar, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 exists although it is explicitly marked as conflating WikiPR and LegalMorning despite them being two separate entities. It's not immediately clear to me what (if any) connection M277 has or had with the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• As a start, M277FreshStart, would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked? Why do you want to be unblocked? What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@M277FreshStart You explained why unblocking you is in your advantage. We don't care about that obviously, because that is irrelevant to the reason for the block which is protection of the encyclopedia. Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia's advantage? You already have been falsifying sources, misrepresenting sources, sockpuppeting and undisclosed paid editing. It sounds like someone would have to doublecheck your every edit. Can you make a list of your accounts? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Their request gives an answer to your first question (and Liz's questions): Some clients, despite this advice, would still rather hire someone to request edits or submit drafts on their behalf. Since I have turned down these requests, I have seen clients go off and hire freelancers from Upwork to upload their project without disclosure, causing problems. Provided that any unbanning is conditional upon disclosing all accounts or using only one account, disclosed edit requests and submissions are better for Wikipedia than the alternative of undisclosed paid editing by other providers.

And note that there have been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 submissions since 2014, long past the standard offer. When someone seeks to do things the right way after a long break, they should generally be given an opportunity to do so.

I am inclined to support this with appropriate unban conditions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's great you're supportive, SilverLocus, but I'd like them to answer my questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@SilverLocust No it doesn't. When we have a new paid editor they might follow the rules or not. With M277FreshStart we already know they don't. So they have not provided a reason why unblocking them is in Wikipedia's advantage, and the request for a WP:CLEANSTART, when they are planning on returning to the exact same behaviour that got them banned last time (which is explicitly not allowed with a CLEANSTART), sounds like an attempt to evade scrutiny (Else they could just use the same account). disclosed edit requests and submissions are better for Wikipedia than the alternative of undisclosed paid editing by other providers They have not provided any evidence for their claim. We know they have broken many rules in the past. Maybe if those clients hire someone else they will hire someone who does follow the rules.

And note that there have been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 submissions since 2014 That is completely meaningless, unless you have a list of their clients and check every edit made to those (and related) articles and checkuser every day to compare them to a list of IP addresses and devices they have access to.

When someone seeks to do things the right way after a long break Not after "a long break". After they got caught breaking all the rules. For money. Not the kind of person we want back. Polygnotus (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

These are all fair questions. In all honesty, if I did not intend to follow the rules, then there would be no reason to ask for the band to be lifted. Somebody who didn’t want to follow the rules would just start editing despite the ban. I will the time to formulate more thorough tomorrow. M277FreshStart (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Support per M277's response to Polygnotus. I agree with SilverLocust. We should encourage UPEs to stop socking or editing disruptively and instead follow the rules. If M277 truly understands the rules around paid editing as well as WP:V, WP:RS, etc., I'll expect to see well formatted and referenced edit requests. If we see history repeating itself, we can reblock. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Voorts and SilverLocust have volunteered to keep an eye on it which is kind of them. Not sure if they've read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277. I find the story "I broke all rules, got caught and then I suddenly had a completely new approach to Wikipedia and decided to care about the rules, even if it cost me money and business" a bit difficult to follow. Polygnotus (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think taking over a decade to come to realize you've made a mistake is sudden[]. I have not volunteered to keep an eye on anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts They appear to claim that they suddenly stopped all rulebreaking and rejected all clients who wanted to give them money for paid editing after getting banned. So yes that is rather sudden, especially since they had quite a few clients and active projects. Polygnotus (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how I read their statement. Perhaps they can clarify. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Struck !vote pending answer to my question below. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) If Morning277 wants to follow the rules now, he is required to list every client on Wikipedia that he has had since the change in the terms of use (June 2014). He should also declare every account he has used, and the accounts of all of his employees used in his business since then. If he is not prepared to do that, he will not be following the rules. End of story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support With proper disclosures as described elsewhere in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• As far as I know, Morning277 still runs their paid editing business and has been actively promoting it as recently as April. They still describe themselves as having been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade - not as having last edited a decade ago. And their website still offers page creation services along with editing, monitoring and translation services, while openly stating that they never disclose their clients. As long as they continue to offer those services, and apparantly continue to edit in spite of the ban, I do not see this being in the project's interests. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Has this request been authenticated? How do we know we are talking to the same person who operated the Morning277 and other accounts? Given the facts in the bullet immediately above, I find it difficult to believe the same person would even ask this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

    If the last verified socks of Morning277 were in 2014 (as noted above) then there is going to be no technical data for a CU to compare the current account to. The most they would be able to do is check whether they have been socking in the last 90 days. We either have to trust them or not trust them, but it would be very odd for someone unrelated to pretend to be someone who was community banned over a decade ago for something that is held in even lower regard now than it was then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

    • Oh, they might be messing with us for many possible reasons, there's no need for us to guess. If they want to verify that the are who they say they are, all the need to do is put a set text on the main page of their business webpage, let me suggest "Hi, Thry". But they can come here and tell us what Wiki-specific message that they've left on their main page. Let me suggest, while they are at it, they explain the page on that site removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/ dated August 2024. What does it mean when you say

"Helpful Tip – This article will help you navigate your current Wikipedia article. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, check out my Wikipedia biography template. You can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf."

• Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Nonrandom break

These are all definitely fair questions to ask. I regret that my conduct, as long ago as it was, was unprofessional. That led to the ban, which I now see was inevitable and deserved, but I also want to clear my name from the stain of association with Wiki-PR. After my ban in 2012, I did continue editing with other accounts until 2013, but these were always caught out. This made me realize that undisclosed and sockpuppet editing was ultimately detrimental to clients, who might just be seeking to have incorrect claims about them corrected, but end up getting tarnished by association with unscrupulous behavior. I have not used an account since my last block which I believe was MooshiePokerFace. I could likely identify the accounts that are mine (and those that are not) that are listed in the Category "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277" and "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277," although it has been over a decade so I do not 100% accurately remember.

When I moved to only giving off-site advice, I also turned a lot of my energies to other non-wiki endeavors such as podcasting and SEO, and advising clients in their dealings with companies like Google and social media providers. I still intend to be involved with exclusively above-board and properly disclosed paid editing, within the rules, as I now advise clients to work within the rules. It would be beneficial to Wikipedia to allow me to disclose and request edits that my clients often have a difficult time doing on their own, despite my advising them how to do so. This would help alleviate complicated COI requests, and prevent my clients from turning to shady companies that will make those edits without proper disclosure, and without regard for other policies such as accurate use of proper sources. I also read Wikipedia articles, as people do, just to look up things I'm interested in, and right now, when I see a typo or an error or just plain vandalism, I have to walk away.

My website does say the large number of edits that I have made and articles that I have made, but that includes the tens of thousands of edits I made before the ban, all the way from when I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, which included a lot of small edits on a lot of sock accounts to get autocomfirmed each time. I also count drafts written for clients which the clients then did with as they wished. Some made their own edits, and some hired freelancers or other companies to do the edits. I try to discourage them from using other companies because I know that sooner or later those companies will get caught and the clients will get tied up in that. The article that Smallbones quotes (https://www.legalmorning.com/removal-negative-information-deletion-wikipedia-biography/) is actually on point with this. That article has an entire section on conflict of interest editing and helps guide people “to” the process, just not “through” the process. This is what I mean by “do the work on your behalf.” I explain what needs to go into the edit requests in certain circumstances, and then instruct clients on how to make those requests directly on their own talk page with full disclosure. That is why the article referred to on Legalmorning directly links to this Wikipedia policy on how to request edits with a COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request). I am trying to instruct clients on how to do things the right way. I am requesting this unban so I can do things the right way on their behalf.

As far as double checking ALL of my edits, I think you will find them all in compliance and that I am willing to abide by any restrictions as far as disclosure and review. I am aware that if I were submitting rubbish and wasting the community's time, I would always subject to being blocked again, probably very quickly and definitely. I am not looking to waste your time or my own by doing that. M277FreshStart (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I also count drafts written for clients which the clients then did with as they wished. Some made their own edits, and some hired freelancers or other companies to do the edits. When is the last time you wrote a draft for your clients? Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their "affiliation" with you as a contributor of the text per WP:PAID? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) You still haven't authenticated your claimed identity. You need to do this before expecting busy editors to take the time this needs. I propose that if you don't do this within 24 hours, or we just close this as unsuccessful. I'm glad you don't mind posting you business site here, but I'd prefer you didn't - it might start looking like an advert.

You definitely need to stop giving us long texts that don't give us any information. If you can list your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it! Since June 2014, this is currently required information that you haven't declared. Presumably, that should include some some socks which were not caught. You don't think that 100% of your socks were caught, do you? Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies. You did mislead the community on this previously, didn't you. Giving us all this detail will help us stop further undisclosed paid editing. Just do it, or don't expect anybody here to do you any favors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

They claim they will never disclose their clients, but that means they cannot abide by our rules.

It is also interesting that they have told different stories about their link to Wiki-PR, here they say they were doing freelance work for them, on ibtimes.com they claimed that clients came from Wiki-PR to them.

What they offer clients falls under our WP:SCAM warning, $1,500 per page per year for "monitoring" of an article.

told IBTimes earlier this month that he made his living editing the site, earning more than any previous job he has held.

They are lying when they write: After my ban in 2012, I did continue editing with other accounts until 2013 because that would require us to believe that they wrote the book Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool when they hadn't edited Wikipedia for years.

A reviewer of the book says far too much time spent on personal rants against policies, Wikipedia administrators and - in some depth - Jimbo Wales. Indeed, most of the second chapter seems to be about attacking Wales, rather than offering any useful advice.

If you use the site: operator on google with their website domain and archive.org you'll see that they have been offering the service of editing Wikipedia even after they were already blocked for years. They still have not explained why it is in Wikipedia's benefit that they are unblocked. Sure, other people also might not follow our rules. But keeping them blocked protects the encyclopedia from them.

They are actively breaking the ToU as we speak: You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. and In addition, if you make a public posting off the Projects advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation of any kind, you must disclose all Wikipedia accounts you have used or will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked: I have indefblocked M277FreshStart; with due respect to Giraffer's good intentions, it is absolutely not permissible for any iteration of LegalMorning to be posting edits anywhere in Wikipedia, in violation of a standing Arbcom ban. We have dealt with circumstances like this before, and we have established protocols. M277FreshStart, assuming that you are reading this and that you have your email activated, I will send you an email via wikimail, and you can communicate to me what, if anything, you want to say in response to the questions asked here. I am generally favorable to giving long-dormant blocked accounts a second chance, if only to give them enough rope to hang themselves should they return to their previous misconduct, but restoration of rights cannot begin with a violation of an existing ban. BD2412 T 20:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have sent the referenced email. I would frankly not be surprised if there is no response, but I have cautioned M277FreshStart against including anything in future responses that appears to promote their website or paid services. BD2412 T 20:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 are they ArbCom banned? I understand they were instructed to appeal to BASC, but the block was noted as a CBAN, hence my bringing it here.

FWIW if they were appealing from their indeffed account, I would not unblock them. I kept them unblocked for the sake of practicality; if you think blocking and copying comments is preferable then that is fine by me. Giraffer (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong. We just need to be careful about the precedents that we set. I think it would also have been a different matter if their initial ban was purely for something like edit warring or paid editing, but it did also include abuse of multiple accounts. BD2412 T 21:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Thanks for letting me know. Giraffer (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the ArbCom ban you're referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't take enough time to dig into Arbcom archives, but I found something about a CBAN in the AN archives. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Is there not an ArbCom ban in place here? The editor said that he was supposed to appeal to ArbCom to get the ban lifted, I understood that to mean that the ban was ArbCom-imposed. Either way, an editor banned in part for abusing multiple accounts should not be editing from a new account to appeal the ban, except perhaps by posting on their own talk page. BD2412 T 00:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think he was referring to WP:BASC, as Giraffer noted. I don't see the harm in allowing him to prosecute his appeal on AN rather than via email, particularly since he was already told by one admin that he had permission to do so for the purposes of this appeal and he hasn't violated that condition. Perhaps Giraffer should have partially unblocked and only allowed edits to project-space since we can't yet unblock for access to a single page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would have imposed the block either way, given the community ban. I would suggest that it sets a terrible precedent, which opens the door to any banned editor (including those banned for sockpuppetry) to create and make edits from a new account, despite being barred from this. Ideally, this editor should have been blocked immediately and directed to make their appeal strictly by email. BD2412 T 00:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence, part of the problem seems to me that procedure has changed over the years, but this editor wasn't aware of it. (Hence their failed attempt at WT:AC/N.) Anyways, hopefully they at the least respond to the email to get this discussion somewhat sorted out. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) When they were banned, they were told that they needed to appeal to the Ban appeals sub-committee. That was disbanded in 2015. Initially all bans that would have been heard by the BASC were heard by the full committee, but at some point after that (I forget when) ArbCom stopped hearing most of them and now only hears appeals of Checkuser blocks, Oversight blocks and blocks unsuitable for public discussion. The community and/or UTRS now hears all other ban appeals, however this is not clearly stated anywhere on the WP:BASC page, so understandably and entirely appealed to ArbCom - explicitly saying why there were appealing there and to let them know if they got the venue wrong. There were told that AN was where they should be appealing, so they moved their appeal to AN. Telling them now that they are not allowed to appeal at AN is really poor form. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not blocked access to their talk page. They can appeal the block there if they would like. I won't interfere if another editor unblocks them. I also note that Smallbones gave them 24 hours to confirm their identity two days ago, and they have not responded to that or otherwise edited since, nor have they responded to my email (although I concede that I only sent it four hours ago). I would give them another 24 hours to respond, and then close the matter.

I would also agree, by the way, that the instructions should be fixed to make it very clear how such bans are to be appealed in the future, and specifically to foreclose the sort of circumstance that we had here. BD2412 T 00:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

GZWDer has added some instructions to BASC to redirect users to APPEAL and UNBAN, so that should work for older bans. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(←) Let us not take the community out of deciding whether a community ban should be undone. Deciding on WP:AN is the best way forward. I'll just note that M277 said they'd answer questions here. Several editors, including myself, asked and haven't received straight answers. M277 hasn't authenticated his identity. If they are appealing to WP:Clean start, they don't meet the criteria stated there. If it is supposed to be about the WP:Standard offer, I believe that essay is for use in standard blocks and bans, nothing about M277's ban is standard. It is one of the 2 or 3 most egregious cases in Wikipedia history, with a huge outcry from the press. They have been creditably accused in the press of extortion. They had hundreds of socks. They are advertising now on their website a book titled something like "Using Wikipedia in Marketing" despite the prohibition of on-Wiki marketing in WP:PROMO.

In the first paragraph of the first section above M277 admits that he did work for Wiki-PR. That should be enough to effectively make this a permanent ban, unless they tell us everything we want to know. Wiki-PR was banned (with unbanning conditions) on Oct. 22, 2013 on this page (WP:AN) as completely as any organization has ever been banned.

"Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards."

The unbanning condition requires full disclosure of what they've done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool. They can answer questions on their talk. Getting unbanned starts with being honest, and I believe they haven't been so far. Compare: I am not Wiki-PR nor do I have a relation with them[67] with Wiki-PR was occasionally subcontracting work out to freelancers, and (just as User:Rybec correctly noted in this discussion) I did some of that work.[68] Polygnotus (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The editor has responded to my email as follows:

I am so sorry. It is very confusing and I am not trying to waste

anyone's time or cause issues. I swear. There are a lot of questions I read last night and I want to prepare a thorough response for each. It will take me a few days to do so as I am traveling from the east coast to the midwest and then to the west coast. In the meantime, I can verify my identity by placing something on my website. You can also see my email domain is from my website. I will not post anything in Wikipedia

again unless my rights are restored.

I can confirm that the domain name for the email address from which the email was sent appears to be the domain name for the company website. BD2412 T 14:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

...@BD2412: Has Morning277 (etc.) previously disclosed their real name on Wikipedia? If not that needs to be redacted as it's technically WP:OUTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Point taken. Although it's all over the Internet, I don't know that it has specifically been on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 19:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They have posted the website name twice in the discussion above. I don't know if anybody has posted their name on Wikipedia, but if it is just the website name, well it's here and it is also associated with the old user names used here in several very reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The name's directly linked to Morning277 here, so I've unrevdel'd the edits - thanks for finding that BD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's time to close this. Morning277 has asked that his community ban be removed. He was properly banned for sockpuppeting and paid editing. He has confirmed that he worked for Wiki-PR which requires another ban. He writes I am happy to answer any questions about my time as Morning277 or the related accounts and provide more information about my identity if it helps facilitate this request. I will abide by any restrictions placed on editing if the ban is lifted.

So there are about 6 questions repeated below. I suggest closing this as unsuccessful and I'll then post these questions on their talkpage. If they then answer those questions in full and in good faith, they can then reopen this. Otherwise, wait six months and try again (with a list of answers attached!)

• @Liz: asked Would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked? Why do you want to be unblocked? What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion?

• @Polygnotus: asked Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia's advantage? ...Can you make a list of your accounts?
• Polygnotus also quotes the WP:Paid contributions policy In addition, if you make a public posting off the Projects advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation of any kind, you must disclose all Wikipedia accounts you have used or will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service. asserting that you are currently breaking this rule. Are you?

• I asked him to explain the passage on his business page

"Helpful Tip – This article will help you navigate your current Wikipedia article. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article, check out my Wikipedia biography template. You can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf."

I found his answer confusing and evasive, saying effectively that he didn’t do the work on the customer’s behalf. It looks like he is trying to fool somebody, either the customer or us (or both)

I later asked (somewhat repetitively) list your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it! … (You) should include some some socks which were not caught. You don't think that 100% of your socks were caught, do you? Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies.

• @Voorts: asked When is the last time you wrote a draft for your clients? Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their "affiliation" with you as a contributor of the text per WP:PAID?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smallbones: In the last (and only) communication I received in response to my email, the editor asserted that they were travelling and that it would take a few days to respond. This is still sitting far enough down the noticeboard to allow perhaps a week from that communication. We have no deadline, and I would prefer not to allow any impression that we cut the discussion off prematurely. BD2412 T 18:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose unban, per Polygnotus. The project does not benefit from unbanning an individual who boasted about using Wikipedia as a "promotional tool" in an article titled "I Get Paid To Edit Wikipedia For Leading Companies", and also self-published a book titled Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool in 2016 (three years after when he is now claiming to have stopped using sockpuppets to evade the ban), on the basis of allowing him to continue engaging in paid editing, regardless of whether it would be disclosed. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

Morning277 should absolutely not be granted the opportunity to perform a clean start. The idea of removing a sanction to allow an individual who is community banned for undisclosed paid editing to perform more paid editing with reduced scrutiny on a separate account not publicly linked to the currently banned account is completely ridiculous. If Morning277 does not want "the stain of association with Wiki-PR", he should not have worked for Wiki-PR in the first place. — Newslinger talk 16:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The following excerpt from the page "The Reason I Never Disclose My Work As A Paid Wikipedia Editor" on Morning277's website (Legal Morning), dated "August 10, 2013" and "Last Modified: April 10, 2016", speaks for itself:

The Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use on paid editing

Since this article was written in 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation in their infinite wisdom (please excuse the sarcasm) implemented new terms and conditions that requires paid editors to disclose their work on Wikipedia. Based on my experience with what happens when people disclose their work (according to the article above), I will continue to protect my clients (both current and future clients) by NOT disclosing any of my paid work.

[...]

I no longer edit the site directly and as such am not bound by their terms of use.

I have a team of editors (paid and volunteer) who I work with. I can assure all my clients (past and future) that their identity will never be disclosed, while at the same time fully honoring the terms of use implemented by the Foundation. Members of my team who perform edits are also not bound by the terms of use for paid disclosure based on the editing methods they employ and as such do not disclose any affiliation with my clients.

Want to know more about how I can help you with your Wikipedia presence? Send me an email and let’s chat.

"The Reason I Never Disclose My Work As A Paid Wikipedia Editor" from Legal Morning (August 10, 2013; last modified April 10, 2016)

The above is linked from the Legal Morning page "Wikipedia Articles" with the text "For your protection – WILL NEVER DISCLOSE MY CLIENTS – we never disclose our clients in order to protect their anonymity", which is in turn linked from the Legal Morning home page and from the top menu on every one of Legal Morning's pages. Legal Morning still advertises a response time of "24-48 hours" to inquiries on its "Wikipedia Articles" page.

Based on Morning277's statements, it appears that Morning277 believes he can circumvent the paid-contribution disclosure requirement by outsourcing his undisclosed paid editing to other individuals, i.e. meatpuppetry. Morning277's incorrect interpretation of the WMF Terms of Use puts the veracity of his request in doubt, and shows that Morning277 should remain banned from editing Wikipedia for life. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• I was fully anticipating a flood of "now way, never" responses given the extent of the deception, the enormous amount of volunteer time, and innumerable checkuser hours that went in to untangling and monitoring the socking involved here. I don't know why were tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out a way to allow this former editor to continue to use Wikipedia for their personal gain. It's a hard no from me, but that's probably because I remember what a nightmare this case was.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm willing to hear him out when he returns from his trip. It's been over a decade now. If he comes back and commits to complying with the rules, updates his website to make that clear, I don't see an issue with extending some rope. I'd even be okay with an edit request only restriction and mainspace block so that every single edit he makes is scrutinized. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts It's been over a decade now You have no evidence for that claim. We know they have been editing for years after getting banned, we are just not sure how many years. I would not at all be surprised if they are still doing the same stuff. every single edit he makes is scrutinized Why should Wikipedia volunteers waste their time scrutinizing the edits of a paid editor who specifically asked a CLEANSTART so he can continue spamming trash without too much scrutiny? Someone who has wasted many hours of volunteer time? They clearly have no respect for our time and do not care about our requests and rules so why should we care about their ability to make money? Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I have just received another reply from the editor by email. It is a rather lengthy recitation of questions and answers, and I am wondering if we should move this discussion to a dedicated subpage. The reply follows. BD2412 T 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I would first like to ask, what would a pathway to return be? If there is no such pathway, I will withdraw the request. There are a lot of articles from 10 years ago that were brought up in the discussion that need updating, such as fully disclosing all edits from clients. That is one of the things I am willing to do so editors can see I am not trying to hoodwink anyone.

Q – Would you still be involved with paid editing if you were unblocked?

A - I would be involved only in permissible paid editing, with full disclosure of all paid edits. I would like to be involved in volunteer editing too, but understand the community may distrust edits I make that are not disclosed so will keep everything I do under the assumption that it is paid. I am willing to write volunteer pages on needed subjects if asked. I could create the drafts and submit to them for feedback.

Q - What is your goal by starting up this complicated discussion?

A – The goal of the discussion is to remove the block.

Q - Why do you want to be unblocked?

A - I want to be unblocked in order to assist clients with making the edit requests on their behalf as opposed to them doing it on it their own. I currently advise them how to make such requests and submit drafts through AfC with full disclosure, but do not do it directly due to the block. I advise my clients to make the required disclosures, but as explained further below, I cannot control whether they do, or whether they hire freelancers that do.

Q – Why is unblocking you in Wikipedia’s advantage?

A – I have had clients that despite instructing them how to make full disclosure, have gone off and paid additional fees to people on Upwork to post the content who fail to make such disclosure. Unfortunately, I cannot control what a client does on their own, I can only control what I have the ability to do. Right now, I do not have the ability to make such requests on their behalf and make the disclosure that the requests are paid.

Q - Can you make a list of accounts?

A – I do not have any accounts currently except M277FreshStart, which I will not edit from until the ban is lifted, and have not had any others since the ban. There are over 400 accounts in the category for morning 277 socks. Some are mine, some are not. I used to make a lot of throwaway accounts to get autoconfirmed and then make a handful of edits and abandon the account shortly after. If you look back 15-16 years, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some I do not remember. If you are requesting that I list all of them, I can go through the 400 and list the ones I know for sure were ones I used, but cannot guarantee I remember a few here and there.

Q – Has the request been authenticated? (similar questions related to my identity).

A – I have emailed from my website domain. I can also place something on the website to verify but was instructed not to put any links here to my site. I am also able to send a verification email to anyone wishing to receive one. Also, my name has been listed publicly related to the morning277 account so do not feel outing would apply.

Q – When was the last time you wrote a draft for a client?

A – I have written several drafts in the last several weeks. I have also reviewed drafts written by clients themselves, and provided recommendations to improve tone, referencing, and neutral point of view.

Q – Did you advise them that they were required to disclose their affiliation with you as a contributor of the text per PAID?

A – I always advise them they must disclose. I do not advise them they must disclose me as someone who advises them since they are the ones making the edits directly. I do not hire anyone to make edits on behalf of myself or clients. Clients are advised on how to do the onsite work.

Q – Explain the passage – “Helpful tip – This article will help you…you can also contact me direct for a quote to do the work on your behalf.”

A – Work on their behalf does not mean I do the work on-Wikipedia. It means the work of researching and writing the information. They would still be responsible for their work on Wikipedia.

Q – List your clients, employee and associated usernames and your sockpuppets, just do it!

A – Please see answer to question “can you make a list of accounts” for the answer to sockpuppets and usernames. If you look at edits made by those accounts, you can tell which edits were minor fixes to get autoconfirmed, and which ones were for clients. I can go through and list clients I had during that time but it may also not be 100% accurate for the same reason. I will list those I am 100% sure about a list of those I am 100% sure were not mine if you would like. It will be a long list given that there are so many accounts, both mine and other freelancers, involved.

Q – You don’t think 100% of your socks were caught, do you?

A – I do not. But, I know that any I had during that time were not used after the ban. See my response for “can you make a list of accounts” as I would like to but I am unsure of some myself.

Q – Please also give a detailed account of your work with Wiki-PR and their successor companies.

A – This is as short as I can make it to provide a detailed account of the situation. I never worked directly for Wiki-PR. I would consider it “working with.” They hired many freelancers to assist with their projects and I was contacted by them to do some projects on a subcontractor basis. I did those projects at the same time I was assisting my own clients. My work was nefarious as I posted edits that did not comply with guidelines and created articles that were not notable. This is because that is what the client wanted. Some of these edits failed as they were not compliant. Some of my clients would hire other firms like Wiki-PR to do the same or similar edits which is why so many accounts got lumped together. I know that other freelancers hired by Wiki-PR were hired to do edits that I failed to “sneak” in and those freelancers were lumped into the sockpuppet investigations which is why there were so many accounts. This is noted in the article about Wiki-PR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_Wikipedia_editing_scandal).

I stopped working with Wiki-PR when the work came to light on Wikipedia and publicly. I also did NOT work with their successor firm Status Labs. I am glad I didn’t since this later happened, which I found reprehensible (https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/jordan-french-the-landlord-who-demolished-the-east-austin-pinata-shop-has-been-forced-to-resign-from-the-company-he-started/).

Mike W.

I'm not satisfied with the answer to my question. PAID very clearly requires disclosing "affiliations" with regard to paid edits, specifically: "other connections that might be relevant, including, but not limited to, people or businesses who provide text, images, or other media for the paid edit" (emphasis added). You should have been telling your clients to disclose that you wrote text on their behalf. That said, very weak support for an unban with an indefinite community ban from mainspace enforced by a block. I'd rather have paid editors following the rules than operating sub rosa. If Mike is actually willing to comply with the paid editing guidelines going forward, I don't see the harm in allowing for edit requests and draft submissions. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Emailing users#Reposting emails publicly Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The email was sent with the intention of it being posted here since this editor is completely blocked from editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The framing of this unban request is wholly inappropriate. Morning277 is continuing to write articles and edits for clients, resulting in some of these edits being submitted on Wikipedia without disclosure. While Morning277 is attempting to position his ban as the problem that needs to be removed, the actual problem is that Morning277 has been spending the years after his ban offering paid editing services to clients with the understanding that it results in undisclosed paid editing, without taking any responsibility for the undisclosed paid editing. If Morning277 is concerned about undisclosed paid editing, he is free to report it to the response team by following the instructions at WP:COIVRT. There is no shortage of policy-compliant paid editing companies who do not have a history of sockpuppetry, and Morning277's potential clients are free to use any of them. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can go through and list clients I had during that time but it may also not be 100% accurate for the same reason. So the promise they made their clients that they would never disclose their identity was also a lie? They are lying to us, lying to their clients, and lying to themselves if they think they can be a netpositive Wikipedian after causing so much damage. Polygnotus (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Good Block - Oppose Unban - Looks like a clear-cut case to me: toxic. Jusdafax (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newslinger's evidence. It seems to me that Morning277 is trying to present one face to us and another to his clients. I detest that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Compassionate727: I would actually like some clarification from the editor on that. If he is talking about disclosing who his clients were from before the ban, it is possible that those clients were not promised anything. It seems obvious that if we check all of his sockpuppets, we will be able to tell who the clients were anyway. BD2412 T 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also, all of that evidence are from blog posts he wrote a decade ago. Mike, will you commit to making clear to your clients / the public (via your website) that you will be complying with WMF policies? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts How would that help in any way? They are still not going to be unbanned. They are already lying that they comply with policy, despite the fact that that is obviously untrue. Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts all of that evidence are from blog posts he wrote a decade ago Did you fact check that claim? Or are you just saying things? Because if you spent a couple of seconds on Google you see that they wrote stuff like: If you are having issues navigating any topic within Wikipedia, please reach out for assistance. We can help guide you through the process and tell you what to look for when attempting your edits. We can also do the work for you so you can focus on your business and not worry about editors with personal axes to grind against your industry. In 2024. So that is not a decade ago, like you claim, but last year. And above they have admitted that they are still currently helping people post spam on Wikipedia.

  For Legalmorning, Wikipedia page creation cost can range from anywhere from $250 to $10,000 depending on the amount of work involved. However, typical Wikipedia page creation cost is in the $1,000 to $2,500 range. Again, this was written in 2024.

  If you find yourself stuck on anything, you can always reach out for assistance. I offer telephone consultations as well as quotes to do the project on your behalf. Again, from 2024. You are allowed to disagree, or even have an objectively bad opinion. But please don't say things that aren't true. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the blog posts where he criticized the WMF's paid editing rules, which seems to be most of what Newslinger quoted from. I recognize that he is still engaged in his business and has been violating the rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts I do not understand what you are talking about. Polygnotus (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  A bit late but this -pardon the AGF violation- seems like a poor attempt at playing devil’s advocate. What they mean is that his opinions regarding WMF paid editing rules is no longer valid. 95.5.189.52 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's his business website. He expects his clients to read it. He should expect us to read it. I see no reason to believe he doesn't mean everything he's written there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with voorts that it is some merit to having an editor making requests through our processes (and thereby revealing who is paying to get their Wikipedia content edited) than to have them sending content to their clients to be added without such notice. The editor currently only has access to their user talk page and to email, and has not abused either yet. If there is no "pathway" of the sort the editor has asked about, we should just maintain this status quo and allow them to make their disclosed paid edit requests on their own talk page, and see if that leads to any shenanigans. BD2412 T 21:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 How would Wikipedia benefit from allowing them to do anything? It will not. Polygnotus (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  How do we benefit from his clients uploading shit without disclosure? We don't. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts Which is why they should be banned as well. But it is no reason to allow this dude back in. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  see if that leads to any shenanigans We already know that they are currently actively meatpuppeting, so we already know "shenanigans" are afoot. Polygnotus (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  No one is required to actually look at or pay heed to their talk page, so if they are allowed to post there, about the only thing they can do is reveal the identity of entities trying to pay to edit Wikipedia, which is to our benefit to know. BD2412 T 21:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hard disagree. See Public relations#Negative. And they claim to never disclose their clients. Polygnotus (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how they could request an edit at all without inherently making such a disclosure, if not formally. Perhaps they have talked themselves into a catch-22. BD2412 T 21:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 I can request a negative edit about X, claiming I work for Y, but secretly working for Z. Catch-22 evaded. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  True, but to play devil's advocate, if their claimed purpose is to make edits on behalf of clients, I would expect proposed edits to be positive, and a positive edit about X while claiming to work for X would not benefit a Y or Z. Even a legitimately paid editor requesting a clearly negative edit would raise its own set of suspicions. BD2412 T 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Sure it could. Let's say your company, or political party, works with or uses the products/services of, another company. Maybe you are a reseller, or in a coalition or whatever. You could request a positive edit, pretending to work for them, which in turn benefits you. Maybe you are the only distributor of that product or service in English speaking countries.

  If I work in a specific niche and have the largest company in that niche, then any edit that is positive about that niche benefits me. And I can easily pretend to work for the competition. Potential customers are more likely to end up hiring me, because I am the largest company in that niche and appear at the top of Google. Polygnotus (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  We can come up with any number of hypotheticals, but I would suggest that our actual experience has been of a lot of paid editors trying to very add positive information to articles on specific companies, with that information being very specific to that company. BD2412 T 22:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I actually have experience with UPEs who were far more subtle than the scenario you describe, who were trying to hide who they work for. I can give you some very concrete examples if you'd like. Polygnotus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I know. In this case, however, we're talking about an ostensibly openly paid editor rather than a UPE. I would be interested in what you have seen by the way, but that is probably fodder for a separate discussion. BD2412 T 22:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BD2412 No, in this case we are talking about an entire network of UPEs: I have a team of editors (paid and volunteer) who I work with. I can assure all my clients (past and future) that their identity will never be disclosed, while at the same time fully honoring the terms of use implemented by the Foundation. Members of my team who perform edits are also not bound by the terms of use for paid disclosure based on the editing methods they employ and as such do not disclose any affiliation with my clients. And I would bet that this guy has socked long after his ban, because giving people instructions sucks compared to just doing things yourself, as anyone who has dealt with employees will confirm. Polygnotus (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• The first link on Legal Morning's "In the News" page is a summary of a podcast video titled "E08 From Fired to Freedom: Building a Six-Figure Consulting Business | Mike Wood", dated "Apr 24, 2025", in which Morning277 says at 20:50, "I never disclose my clients that I work with for Wikipedia". (To see the video transcript on a desktop computer, click on "more..." to expand the description, then click "Show transcript".) Indeed, despite the length of Morning277's email response that was posted here, he does not disclose his past clients and does not offer to disclose any client or sockpuppet account that was not already discovered.
  If a sockpuppeteer who is still creating sockpuppets requested an unblock promising to stop if we unblocked them, any reviewing administrator would decline that request instantly, as we do not unblock users who say that they will stop violating policies only if we unblock them. An undisclosed paid editor who is continuing to perform undisclosed paid editing by proxy and promising to stop only if we remove three community bans (Morning277 community ban, MooshiePorkFace community ban, and Wiki-PR community ban) and a global lock for cross-wiki promotional editing should not be treated any differently. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Newslinger: My reading of his statement is that he will disclose his clients from before the ban if there is actually a "pathway to return". I would expect that to include undiscovered clients. BD2412 T 17:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Morning277's answer about that refers to his previous answer about the sockpuppets listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277 (which now total 568 sockpuppet accounts, not including the 61 listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MooshiePorkFace, after I tagged over a hundred that had not been tagged), so my interpretation differs from yours. Of course, Morning277 is free to clarify with another statement, as well as an explanation of how that relates to him saying "I never disclose my clients that I work with for Wikipedia" on video less than four months ago. In any case, Morning277 should have disclosed those clients prior to requesting an unban, instead of offering the disclosure in exchange for a community-endorsed return to paid editing, because it is not appropriate for us to remove three community bans and a global lock as a ransom payment. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's important here to remember that Morning277 asserts that not all of the socks listed as his are actually his, the strong implication being that that category actually contains three sets of accounts: Socks Morning277 is sure are his, socks Morning277 is sure are not his, and socks that Morning277 is unsure about. Regardless of whatever else they say I see no grounds to disbelieve them on that point.

  Their attitude to the disclosure of accounts and socks seems to be that they are willing to put the time and effort (and it would be a non-trivial amount of both) to answer those questions if and only if there is a realistic prospect of him being allowed to return after doing so. They are not (by my understanding) willing to do that if he's never going to be allowed to edit again regardless of what he says - and I cannot fault that. Frankly think it entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to jump through hoops if you're [generic you] just going to say "no, never" regardless of whether the hoops are jumped through or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf if and only if there is a realistic prospect of him being allowed to return after doing so There is not. disclosure of accounts and socks seems to be that they are willing to put the time and effort We don't care if they have 600 socks or only 200, or if 100 are misattributed to them and another of 100 their socks undetected; the result is the same.

  They are not (by my understanding) willing to do that if he's never going to be allowed to edit again Fine, it is irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I generally agree with Thryduulf here. We can be strict and deny a global unban/unblock under these circumstances and still be empathetic. I think there are two possibilities here. Either Morning277 genuinely wants to edit within the rules, or their request is part of some scheme that involves not editing within the rules. My predisposition is to favor second chances and give editors enough WP:ROPE and see what sort of knot they tie with it. However, I am also a pragmatist, and I can see that there is not much appetite for such an experiment in this case. BD2412 T 03:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  We've always said that to be unblocked after a ban you need to demonstrate that the reasons for the original block no longer apply. Morning277 still offers paid editing services for his clients. He still states that he will never disclose his clients. I can't reconcile his statments online with expectations here. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Morning277 still offers paid editing services for his clients. This is not directly relevant - he was blocked for undisclosed paid editing (and socking to support that), going forward he wishes to engage in the explicitly allowed disclosed paid editing. He still states that he will never disclose his clients. This is not clear, with different people reading statements different ways. I don't have a strong opinion about whether they should be allowed to return, but I do have a very strong opinion that the decision should be made based on the actual facts not based on incorrect assumptions, misunderstandings and flat-out untruths. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  It does seem to me to be directly relevant. He still offers paid editing for clients, and he still states that he will not disclose them. How is this not relevant to undisclosed paid editing? From his website: "Our firm was started as a professional Wikipedia editing service and we understand the Wikipedia page creation process. In addition to page creation, we offer page updating, monitoring and maintenance." and "For your protection – WILL NEVER DISCLOSE MY CLIENTS – we never disclose our clients in order to protect their anonymity".[69] Those look like facts to me. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just hypothetically (since we have not actually seen anything to this point), does it matter what he tells his clients if he does, in fact, disclose them? BD2412 T 16:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  One of the many problems with paid editing that we face is that disclosure has to be based on trust. We do not know who the clients are, so we need to trust that any given paid editor is being honest and revealing all of the clients that they work for. If a paid editor is telling their clients that they will not disclose them, while telling us that they do, I think we have a trust issue - are they misleading their clients, us, or both? - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is a deeper and more philosophical issue as to whether we should allow paid editing on Wikipedia at all. Currently, the rules allow it with specific strictures. If paid editors can never really be trusted, then that is a policy worth revisiting, although the counterargument to that is rather directly on the table here, whether it is better to have no outlet for paid editors knowing that there will be people editing for pay, or to have some outlet that imposes some level of controls that we can monitor. BD2412 T 23:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that paid editors can never be trusted. I am just saying that if we have only three choices - the paid editor is misleading clients, the paid editor is misleading us, or the paid editor is misleading both, they can't be trusted. That said, I do agree that we are better off having paid editors who meet our expectations, as that does pull at least some work away from the UPE. But for that to work we either need to be able to monitor the editors or we need to trust them. Unfortunately, I can't see how either is possible here. - Bilby (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep them blocked, we do not need more paid editors. I do not believe a word they say. Paid editors will say and do anything to get what they want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I have written several drafts in the last several weeks is a clear acknowledgement that they are engaging in WP:PROXYING contrary to their ban. SmartSE (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Smartse: We might need to clarify the reach of WP:PROXYING in that case. If one editor asks another to post something, that is clear proxying. If an editor writes something and gives it to another person and basically leaves it to the other person to do what they want with it, then it doesn't appear that anyone is actually being asked to make an edit, though it is obviously preferably that people post their own words rather than something written for them. BD2412 T 01:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Newslinger for now. If there is disclosure, both retroactively and on a going forward basis, of accounts and clients (which may not be legally possible for them at least for past clients), that would be the prerequisite for a return with whatever restrictions the community deems fit. They should clarify what their position for disclosure on their past, present and future clients is. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Generally I try to look for reasons to say yes to an unblock request, but there is way too much history here. This user's goals and values do not strike me as being inline with those of the community. FWIW, I have always leaned against allowing PAID editing, though I realize it's a complicated subject with no really good solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Peru history pages

User contributions for Diego 2001xD - Wikipedia

--

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddu16 - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2001:1388:1B8E:4D5B:C47A:164C:D15A:19DC - Wikipedia

theres a couple of similarities between Diego and previous eddu sockpuppets

- peruvian history

- adding politically charged or unhelpful terms like Senderista to infoboxes

- often marking edits that are substantive as minor to reduce visibility

- activity on the same articles in peruvian history (prison masscares, infoboxes)

- some activity that looks designed to just add confusion? like no human contributing in good faith would want to change the names of campaigns in the Peruvian civil war infobox to be less clear / to reflect the regional geography inaccuracy

Aside from Eddu and the IP i noted as well im sure ive seen a couple of other reverted accounts

Can we look at some sort of longer term solution to protecting these pages? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please report suspected sockpuppet accounts at WP:SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay cheers I made a report as best I could any feed back or help improving it areas where I was inappropriate would be welcome

Do i need to do anything else to get these pages protected? Something like this happens every couple of months and affects many pages in the Peruvian history section (which honestly isnt active) so when they go unnoticed people edit over them but leave the vandalism i think it really risks building up. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I blocked Diego. Clear and obvious WP:DUCK. LeChatiliers Pupper, that report should have gone at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddu16 as that's the sockmaster. :-) In terms of prevention, I'm not sure it's reasonable to protect basically all Peruvian military history articles? I have a bunch watchlisted now after the last socking spree (Manuelito123xd) and will chip in to revert if I see suspicious edits. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, check that last. I've thrown some semi-protection on a few of the frequently targeted redirects. Open to protecting more of those if you have preferences. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I think thats probably the right balance some of the pages - Peruvian Internal Conflict, The independence war will have plenty of traffic and people watching them. Those I'm least worried about.

You might want to consider adding protection to these technical pages;

Template:Campaignbox Peru conflict - Wikipedia

Template:Campaignbox Civil wars in Peru - Wikipedia

These as perhaps most people genuinely new to wiki probably wont be going here to make edits and edits here affect a large number of pages.

Likewise this page comes to mind as one that have next to no traffic.

Canto Grande massacre - Wikipedia

As eddu created recently but wasnt culled as it was semi saveable but will have an absolutely tiny number of people 1-3 at most watching it perhaps,

and there have been some other redirects targeted that you might not know about;

Operation Fortuna - Wikipedia

Second Battle of Higos Urco - Wikipedia

Moyobamba uprising (1821) - Wikipedia

Battle of La Ventana - Wikipedia

Siege of Arequipa - Wikipedia

There will be more no doubt but yeah I appreciate the balance we need to get here. Cheers LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper: I put long-term semi-protection on the redirects and the campaignboxes. I'm a little hesitant to do that on regular articles, but I can reevaluate if we see more socks. I did watchlist all those pages as well. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Ronaldinho

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

---

Friskowwww This user continuasly reverts what I write according to sources. Even writing in personal ha no result.Γεώργιος Τερζής 1 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Γεώργιος Τερζής 1, I'm not sure I understand your question but remember, you need to notify Friskowwww that you started this discussion. Please do so now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Not fully sure what they wrote myself, but I have made a request at RPPI after looking at the edit history for Ronaldinho. At least ten edits made at Ronaldinho have been reverted in the last 24 hours and it appears that one of the three users involved in this edit war has breached WP:3RR. I believe this likely should be moved to ANI for warnings at a minimum. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I had already informed both users that involved their edits but none answered anything.Γεώργιος Τερζής 1 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Γεώργιος Τερζής 1, you need to notify all involved users that this discussion exists. There's a template at the top of the page that will help. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Technically, they only need to inform Friskowwww now as the other user was blocked as a SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: At this point, two of the three users who I referenced in my earlier comment have been blocked. That leaves Friskowwww, who was never notified of this discussion. Since the original poster has been blocked, should this just be closed without further action here? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Scratch that. All three have been blocked, which includes both the original poster and the user who should have been notified. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Standard offer : Michael.C.Wright

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

---

Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for "Edit warring" on Martin Kulldorff several years ago, and has requested his unblock be looked at in the light of Bbb23's desysopping. Looking at the evidence as it stands, I agree this is complete overkill and would personally support an unblock. However, as previous unblock requests have been declined, I'd like to get an agreement first. There is also an active SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael.C.Wright) but no confirmed socks have been identified. Hence, my decision to open the standard offer. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Unblocks are cheap; I'm in favour of an unblock. If he starts disruptively editing then we block again, but if he doesn't then we gain a contributor. I'm hopeful it'll be the latter, but either way, I see no reason not to give him a shot. CoconutOctopus talk 12:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Support unblock per current good standing - He did pretty well elsewhere. No fuss, he received positive reception on other projects. So this is a good opportunity to give him another chance, as long he will not participate in another edit war. Welcome back, Michael. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Support with topic ban from Martin Kulldorf--Unblocks might be cheap, but reblocks aren't always, especially when dealing with tendentious editors on "controversial" talk pages. The amount of sealioning and stonewalling we see on the Martin Kulldorf talk page is truly absurd, and only tends to get relieved when blocks get handed out. But blocking isn't always easy when admins who watch that page have to respond to the sealioning, and thus become INVOLVED. Upgrade whatever "probation" they're talking about to an actual, indefinite topic ban, and that sounds about right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

A topic ban from Martin Kulldorf, broadly construed, sounds fine to me. Could even be arb-enforced, via the COVID-19 contentious topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Support unblock with COVID/1RR conditions agreed upon here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Support with topic ban as noted above from Kulldorf. Seems to be where the block-worthy conduct was focused. Star Mississippi 13:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Just noting I'm also fine with a C-19 topic ban if that's what consensus is for. Star Mississippi 00:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support with topic ban on Martin Kulldorf Regain constructive user; avoid problems.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• It is worth linking a previous ANI thread about reviewing this block, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Block_review_request_by_User:Michael.C.Wright. I was an involved with the discussions that led to the block in the first place. I'll quote my response to the last thread, which summarizes the issues: Michael.C.Wright has been disruptive at the Martin Kulldorff for a while. In the recent incident the MO was to attack a reliable source on highly dubious grounds, then declare that that means the content is 'unsourced' [70] - it clearly isn't by any reasonable definition of the word 'unsourced'. Then the argument is that since BLP allows for removal of unsourced content, the content must be "be immediately removed without further discussion." (their words). We went around with this same tactic once before, in September - that led to the previous block for edit warring. I think it is also worth mentioning the talk page section Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 3#What's a "disease control measure"?, which details an effort by Michael to keep a sentence out of the article as some sort of bargaining chip to get another sentence they wanted added in - a clear violation of WP:POINT. I think Michael's edits on coffee related articles have been good and helpful overall, but they have been wasting a lot of editor time at the Kulldorff article. I suggest that the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions should be employed, and they receive a topic ban from COVID-19 in place of the current indefinite block. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support with TBAN. I'm not particular about whether it's Kulldorff or COVID. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Bbb23's desysopping (which I've never been convinced was justified anyway) is relevant at all here, especially since the block was endorsed by the community in the 2022 discussion MrOllie linked above. But happy to support, with or without a TBAN, as a standard offer unblock (and would have been happy to support that even before Bbb23 was desysoppd). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support with topic ban on Martin Kulldorf; we will see what happens. BD2412 T 16:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - the latest unblock appeal is couched entirely in a false presumption that Bbb23's desysopping makes an action they performed two and a half years prior invalid; it does not. Their appeal fails WP:NOTTHEM, fails to acknowledge that their own edit warring is the reason for their block, and does not convince me that they will avoid edit warring in the future; see also what MrOllie wrote above. Were they to write a new appeal that addresses their disruptive behaviour, rather than just blaming the blocking admin, I very likely would support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Bbb23's desysopping was absolutely necessary given his behaviour, and it certainly does justify re-looking at his blocks on appeal. I'd support reducing this block to a topic ban from Martin Kulldorf.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Tban from all COVID-19 related articles, explicitly including Martin Kulldorff. Hopefully that will solve the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I would not object to this scope of a TBAN either. BD2412 T 03:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support with TBAN from COVID and a WP:1RR restriction per the editors aggreance at Special:Diff/1248808844 and per WP:ROPE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ban appeal (TonyTheTiger)

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

---

I was banned from having multiple GAC nominations a while back. I have recently created three articles Boating Party, America Windows and City Landscape that are within striking range of WP:GA. My last GAC nomination (Adrien Nunez) took 8 months to get reviewed. I don't really want to wait 24 months for these three articles to get reviewed. The ban has been on for about a year and a half.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: ban discussion. I posted this after SandyGeorgia posted below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

You haven't in any way addressed how your approach may have changed; one immediate example of how you might indicate having changed is to include a link to the discussion of your ban, rather than expecting others to do the work for you. Or you might include some helpful information about ways your editing may have improved in the "about a year and a half" (with no link). Most likely, there is a reason it takes so long for your nominations to get reviewed. I'm unlikely to support this appeal without some very good indications of how your editing approach has changed, and moved away from reward collecting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Tony, can you list some other GAs you've nominated since the restriction was imposed? Adrien Nunez looks good to me but I'm not a GAN reviewer, and it doesn't appear to me that there's any reason that it took so long to be reviewed beyond the chronic GAN backlog. I also agree with SandyGeorgia that some effort from you here to explain why your ban was imposed and how your approach to GA and the WikiCup has or will change if you are unblocked would serve you better in reviewing the appeal, because what you've already written here just sounds like you're being impatient. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thanks for the link. I read only the lead at Nunez, and if that is the GA prose standard, I'm surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• The prior complaint was that my nominations was that I blasted GAC with subpar quality nominations that jammed up the works there. Here, I submitted three impending nominations as samples of my work. Both the America Windows and City Landscape include research beyond my usual google searches. For the latter, I have included both printed sources and JSTOR journals with more sources on the way. E.g., I picked up Joan Mitchell: Lady Painter at the library today. The former already has a handful or print sources, with more on the way. E.g. I have checked out a book on Marc Chagall from the Library already. Regarding Boating Party, since Caillebotte is on exhibition here in Chicago at the Art Institute of Chicago, interest in him is high and print resources are hard to obtain at the library. Since the work was held in a private collection for nearly 130 years up until it was unveiled in 2023, it is not widely written in the journals. However, I think these three are all at a level that would be welcomed by GAC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• BTW, Nunez, is my first foray back into GAC since April 2024.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose there's absolutely nothing in this appeal that shows why lifting the ban would be good for the community, just Tony. That is unfortunately a recurring issue with this editor. Star Mississippi 19:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose: there is no meaningful reflection about why the ban was imposed, what has been learned from it, and what corrective measures will be taken to avoid the conduct issues that caused it. The only rationale I see is I don't really want to wait 24 months for these three articles to get reviewed., which does nothing to assure the community that the user's overall approach in the topic area will change. Left guide (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lifting the ban would put risk of gaming the GA processes once again. I don't see this appeal as helpful. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has exactly the same vibes as when Tony appealed his WikiCup ban in January - "I don't want to wait". There is no indication whatsoever of acknowledgement of what led to the ban or why the behavior that led to the ban won't be repeated - in fact, it very much gives the vibes that any lifting of the ban will be followed by "full speed ahead". Tony, you must reflect on why you were topic-banned and how to avoid repeating the behavior that got you topic-banned; further appeals like this and the previous one could lead to unintended consequences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I currently have a nomination which has been waiting 9 months to be reviewed. That you have to wait like everyone else is not cause, in itself, to lift the topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support some narrow loosening. I'd be fine with some "mercy rule" where after, say, 6 months of a single GA nom pending, Tony is allowed to submit another, to a maximum of maybe three total. I don't think this is a well-crafted appeal, with similar issues to the WikiCup ban appeal in January, which I had intended to oppose before it was SNOW-closed. Nonetheless, when a user comes here with an appeal arguing that their sanction has some defect, I don't see the same need for understanding and contrition as with a full ban appeal. Rather, I look at it as a policy-drafting question, and here the "policy" seems a bit too strict—just a bit, but enough to justify some slightly increased leeway in my opinion. This support is only weak because GA is an entirely optional part of the project (I mean, more optional than everything else), and I'm less worried about being overly draconian there than with, say, a content TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Weak support of your weak support. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately this kind of thing has been a problem for Tony for some time and across multiple processes. The ban appeal here provides no assurances or other evidence that the problematic behaviour won't reoccur. Having only one GAN open at a time isn't a particularly serious restriction, so it seems sensible to leave it in place for now. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• What's so important about GA anyway that's worth spending more than a few seconds looking at a ban appeal? It only means that another editor agrees that it meets the criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not an admin, so I won't be voting to support or oppose. But as someone involved in the GAN project, and who remembers well what happened that led to Tony being banned from the project, I do have a few questions. Tony was banned from the project after dumping no less than 70 low-quality articles onto the nominations list, in the middle of a backlog drive, single-handedly setting back the progress of numerous reviewers and wasting the time of several others. The GA project still has a chronic backlog problem, caused by an insufficient number of reviewers, which is what is leading to the months-long wait times that he is complaining about here. However, when I look at his ratio of reviews to nominations, he still has 226 reviews for 319 GAs (a ratio of 1.4 nominations for every review). Rather than seeking to be unbanned so you can nominate even more articles and put even more strain on the project, why not first help bring down the backlog by reviewing existing nominations? You say you have only nominated one GA since the restrictions were imposed, but how many articles have you reviewed since then? Do you understand that the problem you highlighted, of nominations taking months to be reviewed, will not be helped if you continue nominating multiple articles without reviewing as many (or more)? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • User:Grnrchst, Yes, I have nominated one article and reviewed 3. I nominated Nunez in December 2024 and took part in the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2025 reviewing Welcome to the Jungle (Jay-Z and Kanye West song), 2020 Sparta earthquake, Lou Whitaker.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

    Great, that's one of my three questions answered. Can you answer the other two? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not sure it's good to have someone reviewing articles if they don't understand the standards ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think they don't understand the standards, it's a lack of care for the community's time and energy that I'm worried about. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  To be honest, the Good Article nomination processes have been become stricter as many people joined Wikipedia. You don't always ask for GAN on new articles, it's not worth getting the award, it's a top layer of the cake. Focus on making new articles instead of bragging for GA status. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia needs more quality articles, not more quantity of low-quality low-importance barely-notable topics. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  All editors may vote in discussions like this. You needn't be an admin. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Huh, I don't believe I knew that myself. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  On a related note, Tony, you could try adding a reviewing pledge to your nomination or joining a review circle. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Since I had reviewed 3 articles after nominating Adrien Nunez, I did not WP:GARP that one, but I just added a GARP to a new America Windows nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Its clear from on going activity, even today,[71] that Tony neither understands nor acknowledges the reasons for the restriction. If lifed, history tells us we will be back to square one within minutes. He's promising not to flood while at the same time proposing three weak articles for GA? Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Having read through that I can only reitirate my oppose above - with the added suggestion that Tony should seriously consider in fact withdrawing this appeal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the responses so far. Paul August ☎ 21:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no merit or benefit to Wikipedia by increasing the number of GA's in the queue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - you don't need a silly green icon atop the article for it to be a good article. Editors write good articles all the time without the need for a status symbol be attached to the article. Just continue on with your writing, and let the folks at GAR do what they do. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: loosen restriction (TonyTheTiger)

Tony is genuinely an active content generator and is genuinely trying to improve content, and they're one of only a handful of users I've encountered in sixteen years here who take an interest in rescuing salvageable topics from deletion, even if they have been primarily motivated by scoring points. The spirit of the restriction was to get Tony to stop mass-submitting clearly unsuitable nominations to game a contest, and banning them from the contest has mostly dealt with that. As for limiting them to one GAN at a time, the intent was to slow them down and to ensure they would vet the few nominations they were permitted and learn from reviewers' feedback, but with an eight-month backlog they are not being reviewed in a timely manner, Tony is receiving no timely feedback, and the restriction is far more punitive than originally intended. At this rate it will be years before Tony is even able to demonstrate if they're improving. We should fix that.

I propose replacing the current restriction with the following:

• TonyTheTiger is banned from participating in the WikiCup in any capacity;
• TonyTheTiger is limited to one good article nomination per calendar month.

I support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• This sort of idea could be workable. It strikes me that one a month is still a heck of a lot. Could we go lower?—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  With options of 1/2/3/4/6 months per nomination, that would be 12/6/4/3/2 reviews a year. Given that part of this is to help with seeing improvement, it seems like once every six calendar months would not be enough with a lowered amount, but the others seem like they would work. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  If the eight-month backlog is an indication, one per month would create a soft limit of 8 concurrent nomninations, and presumably create a scenario where one is reviewed each month (assuming the backlog stays the same). Considering that there are currently 831 nominations, 8 more hardly seems to be adding much of a burden. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If what we're aiming for is that nominations are reviewed in a timely manner, then allowing more nominations will not help that, it'll just add even more nominations to the backlog. We need more reviewers; this is the only way to address the problem of months-long wait times. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose one at a time is an adequate rate. If they get reviewed in a couple of weeks then that allows a higher rate if the system is working fast. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, one at a time is enough for a 20-year editor who has not evidenced they can learn from feedback. Re ... "slow them down and to ensure they would vet the few nominations they were permitted and learn from reviewers' feedback", as a FAC Coord who processed many of his ill-prepared FAC nominations, the reward-seeking issue furthered by the WikiCup was not the only problem. The other issues are that a) Tony does not take on or learn from feedback (the basis for this alternate proposal), rather Tony b) waits for or expects other editors to pull his articles up to standard rather than doing, or showing he can do, the work himself, and c) he has not understood the need to build a network of collaborators to help in his weak areas. (If he is even aware of those areas.) From what I've seen of his GANs, the same problems exist at that level as existed at FAC, and his nominations sap precious reviewer time. Someone who submitted dozens of nominations to FAC, and received feedback for years, should be able almost two decades later to write an article at the GA level. One at a time until there is evidence he has taken on board the ample critique always presented, over many many years. Taking even more time to review such a poorly presented appeal is yet another example of the wasted editor time caused by the ways in which Tony doesn't take on feedback. He is not a newbie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Re "At this rate it will be years before Tony is even able to demonstrate if they're improving", the appeal already demonstrates the answer to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  When FAC initially instituted a one-nomination-at-a-time rule in 2010, that was precipitated by TTT's misuse of the process; fifteen years later, GAN is facing the same issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as issues with TTT's sticker-collecting extend back many, many years, and he has provided very little reasoning in this appeal to show that has changed. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there was the slightest indication that Tony has learned anything from his topic bans, I'd support this. There isn't. At all. The attitude evidenced in both this appeal and the WikiCup appeal is solely "This inconviences me". If Tony wants his bans loosened or removed, he must demonstrate that they have had an effect on his behavior. To loosen the ban before that will risk starting a camel's nose scenario, where his doing nothing was "rewarded", so further pressure to loosen the ban will follow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, adding to the backlog will not help the underlying issue, nor is there a reason to allow them to have more when it's not clear they're any more familiar with the criteria then they were. There's no reason they can't wait other than they don't want to, which isn't a reason to increase the load on other editors. Star Mississippi 01:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support some form of loosening. It is not the editor's fault if the backlog process has considerably slowed. BD2412 T 01:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  We don't have strong evidence the backlog process has considerably slowed, it has varied slightly and inconsistently over the past few years. CMD (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Just a comment about the page quality and topics Tony wishes to present - and three obviously "Good worthy" nominations at a time seems a better use of Tony's talents. Importantly, Tony knows or has learned the difference now that he's limited to just nominating his best. As for topics, Chagall's America Windows is an icon of the Chicago Art Institute, one of Chagall's masterworks. Boating Party is literally not only a national treasure of France but "was described as the most important national treasure acquired by the French Republic in the history of the National Treasure program". And a good focus on one of Joan Mitchell's paintings would highlight a major but semi-neglected woman artist. But bottom line, I just wanted to give Tony a "job well done" after reading the discussion (an "o my" at the comments about this volunteer). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Question/Comment: Is it possible that people aren't reviewing TTT's GA noms at the same rate as others' because they know it's historically been a headache to deal with him if problems are found? If so, then the solution is not to alter the sanction, but for TTT to convince others that he's changed his approach to being reviewed. Based on the approach in this request, my uneducated hunch is that this could be the problem. But if he has already changed his approach and this rate of review is typical, then I would have supported some kind of "one GA nom after every high-quality GA review he makes, up to one per month max" restriction (and also, no gaming of the restriction, though I'm not sure how that could happen). But a review of the comments above seems to show that this is obviously not going to happen this time around. It's painful to watch someone make a request like this, and know that if they'd just approached it with the right attitude, it would have succeeded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  GA can be a bit of reviewer roulette, especially given the current number of nominations. It's hard to know for sure if Tony's wait time is related to his approach. It could be that it's just lost in the backlog - with 800+ noms at any time, the chances of one particular article being picked up randomly by a passing reviewer are low. It may also be that for some reason reviewers aren't interested in the particular topic he has nominated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User Higashizakura is Japanese or Vietnamese?

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

---

• In article Arrange and merge administrative units, this user gave a silly reason that there were no administrative units "zone" (khu) and "litte zone" (tiểu khu) before to delete them. I explained it in detail in the message section for this guy to understand, but the user continued to vandalize. (Worvandae (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC))

  There is only one edit to the page by User:Higashizakura. Clarifying why you made this change by adding a source that includes these names would justify their addition. It's possible that this editor had not heard of the terms used in this context before and without a source it is not obvious that they are accurately used here. Discussing it on the talk page is a good first step. Rather than speculating on their nationality or place of residence. This may not be an issue for administrator attention at this time. However, there is no qualification for any editor to be of any nationality to make any kind of edit, addition or deletion, to an article.

  I note that you have barely given Higashizakura any time to respond. You also need to notify them that you have started this discussion on their talk page (which I have done for you this time). -- Reconrabbit 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, I don't even "vandalize", I just thought that the "zone" and "little zones" doesn't exist in Vietnam. – Higashizakura (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  In the article Năm Căn district, I just want the article Năm Căn commune to be splitted. Just like the Vietnamese Wikipedia, they always keep the former urban and rural district, provincial city articles for history. – Higashizakura (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User: Hummel329875: Non-communication, and botlike behavior

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

---

Hummel329875 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I first heard of Hummels work while stalking recent changes, so I checked out their page which is Willy Tiedjen which I did some editing work on, and helping with the sections, and even removing bold face from parts that bold should not be there for, but he kept editing his page every second with very long edit summarys, I tried using AI checkers like ZeroGPT which gave me a result of 4.9% written by AI, but it still seems like this is a bot account being a WP:SPA. When I asked him if he was using ai chatbots, he never responded, just working on the page every minute or so. shane (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Shane! I am not a bot and happy to engage with you on this. I've been working in Word and in Excel on my research, recording my findings with the German newspaper website (https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/) and preparing my notes as I begin to build my first (yes, first) Wikipedia page. I am from the US but moved to Germany and fell in love with Willy Tiedjen (and Fanny's, his wife's) artwork, and thought their story should be share with the world. If I need to improve any text I'm adding to the page, please don't hesitate to let me know as I'm happy to comply. I'm a bit older so taking this all in has been overwhelming but VERY exciting for me to engage with. Again, open to your feedback, but I sure hope I don't get banned, ha! Thank you so much. -Angela Hummel329875 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you also share with me where you asked me about using AI chatbots? I would just like to learn about where those messages would have arrived, if not this talk page. Thank you! -Angela Hummel329875 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

On your talk page which is always right next to your name when you chat shane (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There's something very wrong with the references you are using, or at least the urls you have provided. As an example in your latest edit[72] you say the reference is for the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten published 1913, but the link you provided[73] goes to tariffs on tobacco in Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate from 1729. I've spotted checked a few others and the urls all appear to be nonsensical. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Shane, have you just... reported a user to AN for working hard on writing an article?

Have you ever heard of a chatbot editing in lots of consecutive edits with well-written edit summaries? That's a hallmark of a competent editor, and the opposite of a hallmark of a chatbot. Do chatbots know to boldface alternate names of an article subject on first mention? Generally no, and on that note almost every part of this edit of yours goes against MOS. And I guess, most importantly, a month after I and Giraffer gave you this warning about wading in too deep in admin areas and making incorrect statements of policy, why are you telling a newer user that we have an entire policy on using those types of unethical methods [AI] to write, while linking to an essay, not policy, that does not in fact say AI use is unethical or forbidden? (I'm satisfied by Hummel's answer above, but even if she were using AI to generate individual statements about Tiedjen and then adding them one at a time, that would be an indicator of the kind of human-vetted AI use the community somewhat begrudgingly allows.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin Before saying that, have you looked at the sources? Most of them are nonsense. This is meant to cite a painting from 1912 but is in fact from 1590. This is a map from 1834. And most of them are like this (apart from the ones that are 404). I suspect this is simply AI generated. Unless the editor can explain this, I suggest the whole lot is removed. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Before we go deconstructing, I'm happy to review them. In my excel, I have had to hand type in the numbers from the URLs that I'm copying, so perhaps I've not transcribed it correctly. I am trying with a good heart, I promise! Hummel329875 (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case, you're adding huge amounts of information at very fast speed without checking any that the sources back up your additions. If it was just one or two citations that were wrong, I could understand that, but it's nearly all of them. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I did spot-check the sources, yes. Found 5 that seemed fine, 1 that didn't resolve, seemed normal enough for a new editor making some referencing errors. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but this does not seem like the normal "AI slop" we get, and regular beginners' errors still exist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Check the recently added ones (especially the ones from www.digitale-sammlungen.de URLs). You'll see the problem straight away. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I do see the problem. I'm just not convinced that it's AI, or that this is a matter for AN rather than say the Teahouse. I've seen enough enthusiastic new editors who were making some mistakes get chased away at AN(I) by someone who decided they were some random assortment of bad things. I really don't like seeing it happen. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm extremely unconvinced, but if the user is going to go through and correct the dozens of incorrect citations then great, and hopefully it won't happen again. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, Black Kite. I hope this turns out well one way or the other, because potentially we get a quality article and a quality contributor here once the bumps are smoothed out. If my initial comment to Shane comes off as naïve, well, so be it, but I do think it can be true both that a user was making significant mistakes and that an AN thread was ill-pleaded. Or maybe my frustration with Shane's past poor judgment got the better of me and I assumed the worst; I'll leave that for others to decide. I'd be as happy to be wrong on that as I'd be happy to be right about Hummel, because in Shane too we have an editor with lots of promise who needs to smooth some bumps out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

100% correct! Thank you and my apologies for the misunderstanding. I am a fan of accuracy (I'm also a hobby genealogist) and will review it all. Hummel329875 (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thank you for the insights. I can definitely review and edit the urls if they're not directly properly. I was so proud of all the ones I found, haha! I'm going page by page on 35 pages of results of 'Tiedjen' and am using Google Translate to translate the German to english (of course, if this isn't allowed, I'm also happy to comply), but it all seemed in line with YouTube tutorials and reddits I've been reviewing. Open to feedback of course! Thank you again. Hummel329875 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, the main reason why I reported her to an was because of her silence to my question. the secondary reason was her bot like speed in editing. shane (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Shane. My apologies for not replying more quickly, and I will slow down the copy/paste from Word/Excel, including popping the URL into the browser to verify it's accuracy before adding in. I'll review the URL links I have, too, to be sure they're directly properly. I have screenshots of each newspaper source so it won't take long to correct (but it is late in Germany so I'll finish by end of the weekend if that's acceptable). Hummel329875 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

For editors who prefer to edit with lots of one-sentence additions, that's a fairly normal speed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Restoration of permissions

I am returning to Wikipedia in a limited capacity. As per my previous voluntary relinquishment of permissions, I request rollback, pending changes reviewer, and page mover to be restored, but not NPP or AFC reviewer. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Salvio ^giuliano 21:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

IP editing despite block?

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

---

I'm slightly confused here. I reverted an edit by 197.185.176.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and then went to look at their contributions - Special:Contributions/197.185.176.53 - and the message says that the IP is currently part of an anon-only range block. How did they edit? --B (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a partial block from one page, Draft:Sphokuhle N. They can still edit other pages. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I feel like an idiot. I completely missed that. Blocking people from editing one page didn't used to be a thing. Thanks. --B (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP backlog

I just opened WP:RFPP and saw the 71h backlog, which is the longest I have ever seen (this is of course anecdotal evidence). It was built gradually, still yesterday there were requests not processed for 48h. I have processed a few oldest, but I have now go to bed. Some attention would be appreciated. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Backlog there has been slowly building up the last few days. Unfortunately I don't have much time because of work, but will take a look. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Backlog is mostly dealt with. Thanks to all who helped. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Create Talk:Margaret Mitchell (scientist)

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

---

I am the person depicted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mitchell_(scientist), which has several tags that need to be addressed, and has had them for awhile. I am happy to help address them.

I also think the article could focus more on my work and accomplishments, and would be happy to provide relevant information with sources/references.

Following the instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard/COI , my understanding is that first an administrator needs to create Talk:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret Mitchell (scientist) , and I can submit suggestions/references there; and that the way for this page to be created is for the request to be made here. Let me know if I should be doing something else.

Thanks! M.Mitchell (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Margaret. I believe all users can create talk pages. You should just be able to click "Create page" or "Edit page", add content, then press "Publish changes" below the edit window to create the page. Also, the page already exists. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Talk:Margaret Mitchell (scientist) already exists; just click the "+" tab at the top of the page to start a new talk page section, which will let you make the edit requests you'd like to make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you might be pasting the entire URL into the Page Name box in the Edit Request Wizard. Just paste in "Margaret Mitchell (scientist)" (without the quotes). REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 07:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

ChickpeaAnxiety

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

---

ChickpeaAnxiety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just spent the last few hours making an about a hundred small WP:AGF edits to many different articles. Unfortunately almost every single edit was breaking WP:NOPIPE and/or WP:NOTBROKEN. I just spent combing and reverting many of them, but there’s still more edits to go through. i think it might be a case for a mass-rollback, but I don’t have rollbacker perms. We explained the policies in question to the user on the talk page, so hopefully they won’t make the same mistake again going forward. Raladic (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought I was doing something good and didn’t expect it to be a problem. I have read the rules, and I believe an important part of the edit I made can still be considered appropriate. ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, I not discounting that the intent behind some of the updates for consistency of the terms usage wasn’t good, it was. Just that it happens that the way you went about them by introducing pipe links rather than using the redirects was breaking some of our fundamentals, so the edits had to be undone in the form made and instead done correctly by updating the outdated redirects to the newer terms redirects.

So this is purely a matter of the work it resulted in having to review and undo/correct it and I brought it up here to see if someone with the advanced tooling can speed up the rest that I didn’t get to yesterday as I was going to bed. Raladic (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Echoing @Raladic, you're not in trouble, this is AN and not ANI ;) we appreciate your effort and hopefully we'll get most of the intent of your changes to stick. lizthegrey (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible disruptive editing by SpaceHelmetX1

I've been in ongoing disputes with @SpaceHelmetX1 on two articles: Silverchair and Anne's Song. The former seems to be under control, as I took our issue to the talk page, and when that did little to change anything, I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment.

On Anne's Song, there was a genre dispute that was taken to the talk page. Most recently, they added a genre which fails WP:EXPLICITGENRE, so I reverted it, only for them to say: "take this to the talk page before you get blocked." First of all, I reverted once, that's not breaking the three revert rule. Secondly, I already told them on the talk page the genre was not explicit before making my edit.

I also saw two contradicting edits by them that may fall under WP:TE. On Enjoy Incubus, they made this edit adding an unsourced genre, while on Hate to Feel, they made this edit removing a genre for being unsourced. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

An account with a single purpose: genre warring. It seems they've created their account to make only genre changes to album's articles. They don't take kindly to being contradicted. When you point out they're wrong, they quickly deny your reversal, ignoring what WP:BRD says. IMO, per my experience here, only their block is functional in this case. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations. I've made substational additions to Concrete Blonde (album), Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song), Dream Into It, Don't Need a Gun, INXS (album) and Plush (song).and created the articles Under the Blade (song) and No Way Out (Stone Temple Pilots song). I've only reverted your edits for disagreeing with your reasoning for me being wrong, and explained so in the edits. I've also been more than open to discussing disputes on talk pages CleoCat16 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Let other editors see your edit history to see if I've made any false accusations. You've already been alerted by @FlightTime. Your articles may be deleted at any time. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither of us have an unbiased view on this situation. I brought this to the administrators attention for a reason, and would prefer to wait for what they have to say. CleoCat16 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm so excited to see what they have to say about you. You've already been warned by @FlightTime. I'd love to hear his opinion about your edit history. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't seen this in regards to those warnings. Regardless, I won't say anymore, and recommend you do the same. The administrators will decide. CleoCat16 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And, as I can see, they answered you. At Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, you've been warned by them (@FlightTime). They left a warning on your user's talk page. You said I've made "false accusations," so I need to protect myself. One thing you should understand is that, here, when you accuse someone of making "false accusations," you may hear the "real" ones. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

They're not an administrator, and again, that's already been settled at the help desk I linked. CleoCat16 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have a high level of ignorance about Wiki rules. First, administrators are important, but Wiki isn't run solely by them. Second, they (@FlightTime) are a great editor, with an extensive experience, and with an account much older than yours. I would listen to them. You've been warned. Your edits were correctly reverted at Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article. The issue there hasn't been resolved yet, and, as I've noticed, @FlightTime was correct in that one. If you break the three-revert rule, you may be blocked. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

1. I don't claim to be perfect. With that said, I'm aware of Wiki rules and would never knowingly go against them.
2. Wikipedia would not be possible without admins, and they have full control in this situation
3. I'm guessing you still haven't read the help desk I linked. See what the other two users had to say
4. I never broke the three revert, but you did according to your block logs, but I won't hold it against you, as I see you've not repeated the mistake since.

CleoCat16 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. To be brief on this, the Admin's noticeboard doesn't prohibit non-admins from commenting. So, CleoCat16, it is okay that non-admins discuss and participate here. SpaceHelmetX1, regarding your comment below (that has an outdent right after it), this doesn't appear to be belittling, but a misunderstanding. Hopefully this clears things up. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

• CleoCat16 and SpaceHelmetX1, you keep saying you want to hear what admins say but then you keep attacking each other. Your point of view won't hold sway because you are belittling the other editor. You need to argue on the strength of your position, not attack the other editor. That only makes it more likely that you'll receive a block for incivility. You've both had your say and this is the wrong place to even bring this dispute. If CleoCat16 brought this disagreement to DRN, SpaceHelmetX1, you shoud have agreed to have this dispute heard. If you didn't participate in the discussions on the article talk pages, that doesn't speak well of you. I encourage you to return to the article talk pages or DRN to talk this out and not edit war or levy personal attacks on each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thenks and apologies if I came off strongly. I already make a request for comment on Silverchair, but may do one on Anne's Song too. CleoCat16 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  I. I didn't attack anyone.

  II. The other editor has decided to bring the dispute to here, and as you pointed out, here is not the better place for such.

  III. I never avoided the discussions on the articles talk pages. When I was questioned, I responded to everything. I'm not trying to turn this place in a battlefield. When my user's name is mentioned, I have the right to reply.

  IV. I didn't falsely accuse anyone of anything. What I said is real. The other user has been warned several times on their user talk page, the most recent warning being made by our fellow @FlightTime.

  V. I didn't belittle other users, I didn't diminish them. Unlike the other editor who belittled our fellow editor @FlightTime cause he isn't an administrator (those were their own words, and if you demand it, I can prove it), a behavior I'm not sure if is appropriate here. Again, I have not belittled any editor, quite the opposite, I have only shown respect to other fellows. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If either one of you want to get anywhere, stop bickering and start providing WP:DIFs of misconduct. Cleocat, you've provided minimal difs, and SpaceHelmet, you've linked to nothing. Is there anything serious going on here or is it just 2 editors genre warring? I can't tell. Give us something to work with if you want the situation to be reviewed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a case of genre warring. Our fellow doesn't handle well when they're reverted. At Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, he was reverted by @FlightTime. They were notified on their user talk page by the same editor. @FlightTime and I have been having issues with such editor. Here, on this page, in this topic, there was a moment when they belittled our fellow @FlightTime because he wasn't an administrator. By my experience here, I know that this isn't the best behavior in the world. Not to mention that they brought the dispute to the wrong place, as another fellow editor has stated. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, please read on what a WP:DIF is. Provide actual links to actual edits and describe what's wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll provide the links. Here, in the Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, in this edit, they added a genre to the infobox, removing a previous one, which is sourced (a common behavior from them), with the following edit summary: "Improved lead and added soft rock. Even with a source, the song is too much of a soft ballad to justify hard rock as a genre." Here we can notice a removal of a sourced genre without first starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Adding a new genre using material (some random website called rewindstl.com) whose quality/reliability hasn't been confirmed, disregarding what WP:BURDEN says. They later added the same material again, undoing a @FlightTime's edit. Regarding what they said about @FlightTime, the link is not needed, since it is already here in this topic (unless they edited and removed their additions). Here, @FlightTime reverted their edit for the first time. They stated in the edit summary: "Doesn't seem like a very reliable source, seems like just someone's personal opinion. Take it to the talk page if you insist." As we can see, for the first time, another editor warned them about the quality of the material they intended to add, and the editor asked them to take it to the article's talk page if they insisted, something they've ignored. Later, here they undid the FlightTime's edit with a new argument not used in the first edit when they intented to add the genre in the first moment where they remove the hard rock tag from the infobox. Here they might even have been right, but they were reverted later by @FlightTime. Here, they restored the soft rock tag using a website called "I Love Classic Rock" as a source without confirming the quality/reliability of such material as they've been warned about. I really don't know if "I Love Classic Rock" could be considered a reliable source. And lastly, here they were reverted again by @FlightTime, who claimed to have left a message on their user talk page. All we can see here is genre warring, change of genres, addition of unreliable material without proving its reliability when it was required... SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want another sample, here it is. On Silverchair's article, they have been warned about genre changes. Here, it was stated that any genre change, removal of a long-term genre that has been accepted by other users, needs to be discussed first on the article's talk page. Knowing this, they later removed the same genre from the article's infobox again, stating that it was added in 2023 by an IP and that its therefore not a "long-term genre", even though it has been accepted by other editors, who never removed it and the main part is: it is sourced in the body of the article. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies for not being specific enough. The first two paragraphs of my comment were both for context. I've put in a comment on Silverchair, and will likely do the same on Anne's Song in the near future. As pointed out by @Liz, they're not necessary for admin intervention at the moment, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

The third paragraph is what concerns me most. The article for Enjoy Incubus looked like this when I first came across it. SpaceHelmetX1 then made this edit, removing one genre for being sourced by WhatCulture, a good change per Wikipedia:WHATCULTURE, but then they made this edit, adding an unsourced genre with the reasoning its the same as the band's debut album, Fungus Amongus, which has funk metal and alternative metal as genres for as long as I can tell. This is a failure of WP:GWAR. They've correctly removed poor sources since then, but in doing so, added a second unsourced genre, by keeping alternative metal, despite getting rid of its source. Not only that, it's in contradiction to their edit on Hate to Feel. This article looked like this when I first came it across it, another user adding a genre with the argument WP:BLUE. SpaceHelmetX1 correctly reverted this here, but this was before their edit on Enjoy Incubus, showing they were aware of genre rules when adding unsourced genres. On a different article, Brown (P.O.D. album), before I was fully aware of Wiki's genre rules, I added a genre with no source. SpaceHelmetX1 then correctly reverted it for being unsourced in this edit, but kept two genres that are also unsourced. To me, this seems like WP:TE, as they were clearly aware of the rule when making these two edits

I will admit, I started as primarily a smaller, genre editor, but I've grown past that and now prefer to make more substantial changes. I do still make genre edits when I'm shorter on time, but it's not my primary focus anymore. The example of Every Rose Has Its Thorn that SpaceHelmetX1 s using was already resolved on the help desk, with the two other users involved siding with me. SpaceHelmetX1 fails to point out I tried to discuss the changes on the other user's talk page. Regardless, the situation is resolved and does not require admin attention from what I can tell, so why it's being brought up here is a mystery. Also I have nothing but respect for the other user, and saying they're not an admin was not an insult, but a factual statement. I'm a little sad the take away they made on the help desk I linked is to stop editing music articles, cause keeping an eye on them is important work I respected them for. As for why I've not readded my changes on the article, I've been involved in larger projects, like expanding Phantomime (Ghost EP) and Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song) and would prefer to wait a few weeks to ensure there's no disagreements left. CleoCat16 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, the situation is resolved and does not require admin attention from what I can tell, so why it's being brought up here is a mystery. Given that an issue between the two of you was brought to this noticeboard, it can be relevant that it got brought up as any party to a dispute can have their conduct looked into. (As explained at WP:BOOMERANG.)

Regarding the situation as I see it, FlightTime wanted you to discuss this specifically at Talk:Every Rose Has Its Thorn. Instead, you brought it up at FlightTime's talk page after FlightTime had posted a warning notice to your talk page which asked you to use the article talk page. (It isn't prohibited to do it that way, but it kinda leads to a WP:MULTI situation.) You then cited an essay in an odd way (as you did get an explanation on your talk page), before going to the Help Desk regarding the situation rather than the talk page. I do get that FlightTime's claim of the help desk has no idea how musical articles work is confusing, but we do have article talk pages to discuss edits to an article. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

An important point here is that CleoCat16 seems to be treating the Help Desk advice as some sort of binding decision. It's not. It was just the advice of two other experienced editors. Only one of the editors even said anything suggesting CleoCat16 was in the right, the other just suggested they need to use dispute resolution. FlightTime themselves is an experienced editor. If I was responding I'd have suggested WP:BRD was more important. Perhaps FlightTime could have explained better but it seems clear that they had decent reasons for requiring CleoCat16 to go to the talk page. Unfortunately CleoCat16 seems to have failed to do that. In the Help Desk case Talk:Joey (Concrete Blonde song), all they did is to open an edit request which was unnecessary (CleoCat16 could edit the page themselves) and unhelpful (edit requests aren't intended as a way to start discussion). In Talk:Every Rose Has Its Thorn, instead of opening a talk page discussion, CleoCat16 just unhelpfully reverted saying they would. But it's BRD not BRRD and the time to open a talk page discussion was before reverting the revert. Could FlightTime have opened the talk page discussions instead? Sure, they could have and maybe should have. But CleoCat16 is the one here defending their actions. And of course as always it's particularly unhelpful for CleoCat16 to refuse to open a talk page discussion because they expect FlightTime to do it instead. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I've notified FlightTime of this thread as although they were mentioned several times before me, no one seems to have notified them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had made an assumption that ended up not being true. (I thought that they were already notified, but apparently that was something else from the user who opened this. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD is also only an esssay. There's no rule saying you have to discuss on the talk page. I didn't expect anyone else to open a talk page discussion, I used other means of dispute resolution, and in both cases, did just that. I find talk pages get little contributions for debates such as this. Even if suggesting an edit was unnecessary, there's no rule against that. I used it to see if a more experienced editor could implement my changes to more success. Also, the help desk's decision in both cases was accepted by the other editor. I waited some time after both of my edits before restoring them. It's not a "binding decision" but a conclusion in these two instances. CleoCat16 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Answering a ping; Sorry, I no longer watchlist musical articles. If there is a specific diff that needs my response, please ping me. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

BRD may be just an essay, but it is one that many of us feel is good advice, and your refusing to follow that advice does not help your position. A good rule of thumb is that if your edit gets reverted, and no one else will support your position after working your way through the dispute resolution methods (including discussion on the talk page), then walk away. Donald Albury 17:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I followed WP:BRD, it never says you have to take issues of this sort to the talk page. I reverted once after my edits were undone, and after that, I used dispute resolution to get a conclusion. CleoCat16 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD says If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page. The second step at WP:Dispute resolution, under Resolving content disputes, is Discuss with the other party, which specifically says Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't say you have to discuss on talk pages. I also never reverted my edits being undone since I reimplemented them with different sources and wording. FlightTime, who from his comment doesn't seem to want to be pinged or associated with music articles anymore, reverted my edits the first time on Every Rose Has Its Thorn for being unreliabily sourced. I did not argue this, and instead, reimplemented my changes with a better source. They didn't say anything about discussing until reverting my second edit, after which I did discuss. I'm happy to end this discussion now since no one's said anything on the points I've made. I'll just try to stay away from pages the other user frequently edits on. CleoCat16 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "prerequisite" means? (But also: the strategy "I'm going to argue with five different people all telling me the same thing, that will demonstrate I'm the reasonable one in the underlying dispute" does not seem promising to me.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No need to be demeaning. All I've done is calmly defend myself. So far no one's said how I've broken any Wikipedia guidelines. I've already said, I'm fine with nothing being done as all you've done is WP:DEFLECT. I get WP:BOOMERANG exists, but no one's even looked into my initial claims. The situations you're using against me don't even involve the other user. CleoCat16 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It does seem that this went on a tangent, but it looks like it is related to my explanation of what SpaceHelmetX1 brough up being something that is permitted and it flowed from there. Since we are on a tangent anyways, I am curious about something. In your initial comment you said: I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment. "[R]equesting a comment" seems to be very close to WP:RFC, Requests for comments. Were you trying to start an RfC here or am I off-base here? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it wasn't clear from my initial comment. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that clears up quite a few things for me, especially why you wanted to wait for admins. Sadly, AN is not really a place for RfCs (or at least one of this nature.) Per WP:RFCNOT, The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If the dispute cannot be resolved there, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort. You may want to read about other options in the Resolving user conduct disputes policy. (For an RfC, the best possible venue probably would have been one of the music articles or maybe the WikiProject, but I think we might be a bit past that one.)

The best explanation I got for what discussion you started is by pointing back to DISCUSSCONSENSUS: When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). It seems that by accident, you might have asked for a more extreme process than what you were intending to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, outside of the final paragraph of my initial comment, I don't think anything here needs an administrator, and even that's debatable. I've made a request for comment on one of the articles I've had issues with, Silverchair, and that's already been belpful when it comes to forming a conclusion. Thanks! CleoCat16 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you are trying to invoke WP:WITHDRAWN or a similar policy. (WITHDRAWN is for deletion discussions, but it seems you want to do something similar here.) Personally, I don't believe it will be that simple as it is possible that a party might want to continue this here or elsewhere. However, if you want to try, you should {{strikethrough}} your original comment that started this discussion.

I went looking and we don't seem to have a policy or guideline that fully explains things, but the closest would be a combination of WP:STRIKE, WP:REDACT, and WP:WITHDRAWN. STRIKE explains how to apply strikethroughs, where they can be applied, and why someone would do so. REDACT goes into more detail about STRIKE. And while WITHDRAWN is intended for deletion discussions, it doesn't seem like there is a rule that restricts the original comments from attempting to withdraw a discussion here. (In fact, the archives suggest that a user did this back in January and the discussion they started was closed as withdrawn.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll likely add a strikethrough, but it seems this page is getting more attention again, so I may hold off to tomorrow. CleoCat16 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Well if you want policies only, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion (...) But it does seem possible that you were not been aware of this, so hopefully this helps out for the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I was not. I prefer user talk pages, but I'll make sure to use article talk pages in the future for this. As I said, contribution on talk pages can be slow, so I'll probably ping users (such as recent editors on the page) going forward. I assume there's nothing against that. If not, feel free to inform me. CleoCat16 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Using user talk pages to resolve content disputes is rarely a good idea. Plenty of us ignore user talk page discussions about content disputes. If you bring up something on one of the administrative noticeboards and there is no article talk page discussion, from our point of view you've refused to discuss the dispute which is generally a very bad thing.

Also especially for something like this there is absolutely no urgency. It's perfectly fine if it takes a week or two to resolve and it's perfectly reasonable if editors take a few days to respond. If this doesn't work for you then Wikipedia unfortunately isn't the place for you since we're a volunteer collaborative project and editors aren't expected to respond urgently to stuff that has zero urgency. It's generally fine to ping editors once when you reply to them or when you initiate a discussion but stop if they ask you not to.

BTW, insisting editors need to prove your violated some guideline when you came to AN to complain but in the process demonstrated you're behaving poorly e.g. refusing to follow BRD, is rarely good sign for editors who want to be able to contribute successfully here.

As for your opening complaint, while it would have been good for SpaceHelmetX1 to participate in the DRN ultimately it's a voluntary process. They've clearly discussed their reasons for disputing your edits so I don't see any indication their behaviour has been poor enough to justify any sort of administration action or even a warning so there was no reason to open this thread. The ANs are not for content disputes. And since your behaviour has also been poor, you shouldn't be surprised this thread was so poorly received.

If you can't resolve the dispute between the two of you and since the DRN has unfortunately failed, you need to use some other method of dispute resolution. If you want to open an RfC then go for it, it should have nothing to do with AN unless behaviour in the RfC by one or more parties ends up so bad to justify it. Alternatively it's likely there's some relevant Wikiproject where you can seek more feedback. I'd also note that AFAICT in Talk:Anne's Song there's only two of you so WP:3O is probably still an option.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to open an RfC then go for it, it should have nothing to do with AN unless behaviour in the RfC by one or more parties ends up so bad to justify it. Based on a comment they made within the last two hours, they were trying to start an RfC here and didn't realize that RfCs are not done here for content like this. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I started a RfC before this. Outside of the points in my initial comment and only the final paragraph, this discussion did not go in the direction I expected, and as you can probably see, I've striked through it, as you showed me. CleoCat16 (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V has politely told me what I've done wrong. I know you're probably trying to help, but you're making it sound like I'm a disruptive editor who Wikipedia is better without. I've only been here five months, I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. I don't see how I refused to follow WP:BRD, when I was told I needed a better source on Every Rose Has Its Thorn, added a better source and didn't revert again until discussing, but I'll do differently in the future. Thank you, but this has been stressful, and I'm taking a break from Wikipedia as a result. CleoCat16 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay, but it shouldn't be ignored. Many editors here follow it cause it's recommendable. What WP:BRD states is that when your bold edit is undid by an editor, you shouldn't revert to your version again, but rather, take that dispute to the article's talk page. In Every Rose Has Its Thorn's article, our fellow @FlighTime asked you to create a thread on that article's talk page. As I could see, no thread has been created there. They challenged the reliability of that ref you've added, a website called "I Love Classic Rock", created in 2019. WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proving the reliability of some material falls on the editor who intends to add/restore such content every time its questioned, and such thing didn't happen. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This discussion can probably be closed; Cleo has announced that they are abandoning their account for a "clean start".[74] Schazjmd (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

(Just to note, we already discussed above that DISCUSSCONSENSUS is policy and covers a good chuck of BRD.) Regarding BURDEN, it goes both ways and I think I am seeing why FlightTime said what they said. Having gone through page after page of results more than once, I literally could not determine if the song should or should not be soft rock or not. I found a lot of what I would describe as noise, but nothing definitively for or against it.

In any case, CleoCat16 has indicated that they are trying to withdraw from this discussion, so it might be best to let this AN discussion end. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Since CleoCat16's retirement seems to be conditional I might as well mention one thing I forgot to make clear above. While BRRD isn't generally a good thing, frankly I'd have less concern if CleoCat16 did at least initiate a discussion when they reverted the revert. But as I did say above, they didn't. Instead they just reverted and left the discussion for sometime in the future, perhaps hoping FlightTime would initiate it. So what we ended up with isn't even BRRD, it was BRR. That's exceedingly unhelpful. As I said, it helps no one when two editors refuse to discuss something because they're waiting for the other party to initiate discussion. One of them needs to just be the better editor and start the discussion and not worry about who should. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Since CleoCat16's retirement seems to be conditional Ugh, I hope they actually read Clean start before doing it, but whatever. They were moving so fast that I don't think I kept up on things.

Anyways, hopefully whatever they do, they do start following DISCUSSCONSENSUS and BRD. Though their statement that I don't see how I refused to follow WP:BRD is making me doubtful, but it would be great to be proven wrong. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Please check out this fellow here: @Uncountableinfinity. That account was created nine days ago, on August 8 or 9, around the time content disputes began on articles like this. They simply appeared yesterday on that article's talk page only to share their views on an RFC that was started a few days ago by @CleoCat16. This seems a bit odd to me, as it coincides with them announcing their retirement. It was clarified here that editors cannot announce their retirement and then returned with a new account (a sock) to edit on articles where they entered into disputes. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If you're looking for CleoCat16's new account, here it is. I check Wikipedia periodically, but no longer make edits. I didn't want to comment here, but I also don't want another user getting in trouble for no reason. TheWizard70 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

...announcing "I was formerly X" is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I read WP:CLEANSTART, but it seemed more a recommendation than a rule. Still, it defeats the point of clean start, and I only did it because I didn't want another user to get in trouble, and decided I have no more interest in editing. TheWizard70 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is a policy, so yes, it's a rule, not a recommendation. Even when it is a recommendation (not the case now), it shouldn't be simply ignored because of that. But, especially in the case of WP:CLEANSTART, it's a rule. Breaking such a rule may result in a block. Regarding other users... that account I've cited has been created 11 days ago. Who's to say you didn't create another account in the meantime too? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I found the fact deeply strange, so I think it should be investigated. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

SpaceHelmetX1, if you believe that someone is a SOCK and wish to, you can then report them at SPI with evidence per WP:HSOCK. Claiming that another user's behavior is suspicious without good evidence does not align with assuming good faith. (It also wasn't good that you didn't notify the other user.) --Super Goku V (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Here is a list:

Every (or almost every) spot where "I was formerly X" would be seen as a violation of WP:CLEANSTART.

The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior.
However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly.
Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions. The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks, or sanctions (including but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account. (Sgv: Adding this in as I would have advised against a CLEANSTART to begin with.)
If you attempt a clean start but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts. The fact that you notified someone of the change will not excuse you from the consequences of your actions or protect you from recognition.
It is best that you completely avoid articles or topics that you previously edited, especially if you were involved in a dispute with another editor(s). If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s). Likewise, if you want to make a clean start because of harassment from other editors, you should avoid editing articles that may place you in conflict with the same editors, because they will probably recognize you.
However, returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper.
These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start. Even if the original account is not under a formal editing restriction, changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute. It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account. Changing accounts, and then resuming to edit in a contentious area, carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize you and connect your old and new accounts. You may be viewed as evading scrutiny, which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans.

For what should have happened, you should have let SpaceHelmetX1 take Uncountableinfinity to SPI, which would have come back negative based on this discussion. Uncountableinfinity would not have gotten in trouble from my point of view.

So, what happens now? Well, the good news is that if you don't want to make edits, then you won't see much change. There is a decent chance here that both accounts (CleoCat16 and TheWizard70) get a block, potentially indefinitely. (I am not sure here, but there is a chance here.) To make sure this is said, an active block would prohibit another attempt at CLEANSTART. If I am correct to this point, your best bet for editing in the future (if it interests you again) would likely be to wait down the road and ask for the CleoCat16 account to be unblocked while following what is said at WP:UNBLOCK. (UNBLOCK is a guideline, but guidelines are recommendations and this is a recommendation you should follow if you are blocked indefinitely.) If you do make an UNBLOCK attempt, I would advise waiting a few years for this to settle. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@SpaceHelmetX1: Ignoring what is going on in the other reply, I did indicate what could happen if this was closed. (Though, it seems maybe it was an implication only.) Regardless, if you did want this to continue, my suggestion was going to ANI regarding CleoCat16.

As for why I am not addressing your claim despite that I said I was going to be ignoring the other reply, it is because you didn't notify Uncountableinfinity of this discussion. (I know the edit notice says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" and not "When you bring up a claim about an editor..." However, the intent of the notification is so that people can address claims that are made against themselves.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Angrysct0tsman12 suspected edit warring via IPs

I'm suspecting that user:Angrysct0tsman12 is conducting edit warring via IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193 on page Battle of Đồng Hới. There's a correlation between the comments of the user and the IPs on the talk page.[75] On the article page, the user and IPs continuously conduct mostly identical reverts.[76][77][78] I kindly ask if any measures can be taken, either by me or any admin. 95.252.72.125 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

That is someone else that shares the same opinion. My edits are being made in good faith and I am engaged in the talk page with the expressed intent of achieving a consensus. The issue here is that the primary source here being cited is biased. In the interest of maintaining a degree of fairness, my edits have been made to reflect measurable outcomes (i.e. equipment damage) which are contained in the sourced material as opposed to simply passing off the claim of a "moral victory" as evidence of an actual tactical or strategic victory. There wasn't a particularly significant battle so both sides could easily claim "victory" here. Thus my proposal is sidestep the back and forth claiming entirely and stick with what is objectively true.

Edit: After looking into WP editing policies more, allow me to try and articulate myself better. The source of contention revolves around a primary source that exclusively uses the first hand account of North Vietnamese pilots who flew during the Vietnam war. This is one of those cases where the source itself is reliable, but inherently biased due to its point of view.

The point of contention revolves around what should be placed in the "results" section of the info box. The source itself says "The twenty-minute attack was hailed as a great moral victory". Now this is very much an opinion; not a concrete fact. Moreover, the Merriam Webster definition of a "moral victory" says it is the "achievement of something that is important and good". This tag is usually applied to cases where a side lost but found a silver lining somewhere.

Therefore it does not seem appropriate to cite this singular source without properly contextualizing what was being said. That phrase could certainly be included in the body of the article. It just doesn't belong in the info box based on that source alone. Let's stick to providing factual narratives and not try to plant nationalistic flags of "my team won, yours lost" which is seemingly what has been happening the previous 16 years this article has been live.

Side note... this seems like a extremely inappropriate means of hashing out this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrysct0tsman12 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a matter for WP:AN3, not here. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 03:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed modification of Arbitration Committee procedure

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#CTOP/AE page protection logging. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves

GhoshThakur has made multiple disruptive page moves involving caste-related titles without prior discussion or consensus. These actions appear to be caste-based POV pushing.

Problematic moves:

• Chudasama (Rajput clan) → Chudasama (Ahir)
• Chudasama (Rajput clan) → Chudasama ( Ahir/Yadav clan)
• Chudasama (Rajput clan) → Chudasama ( Ahir clan)
• Hindu Ghosi → Ghosi Thakur

GhoshThakur also created a blatant hoax redirect[79]. Requesting review, reversion to stable titles, and administrative action to prevent further disruption. Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I dropped a final warning about the caste-related extended-confirmed-restriction. Counting on someone else to fix the page moving mess. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Firefangledfeathers for your efforts. Please also revert this page move: [80]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Came to this through CAT:CSD and only just noticed this AN thread. I've deleted 2 of the bad titles under the WP:ARBECR for Indian caste history; another was deleted by BusterD. Some protections also applied. Any remaining questions about the page title can be handled through the normal editorial process. Checkusers may also wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Forgot my password and my PC where I last was logged on to is bricked - what to do...

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

---

Admins I come to you in a time of need. Well not really that much need. Hoping an admin can add a notice to the user page of the account I can no longer log into, User:LegalSmeagolian, and link them to my new account and note that I am no longer editing under that account anymore due to loss of access.

Would also love Extended Confirmed permissions per my other account, as I was engaged in some topic areas requiring such permissions, but I am fine waiting and just editing in other topic areas. Thanks to whoever helps out. LegalSmeagolianTheSecond (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried resetting your password? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I did. Unfortunately, if an email was associated with the account (I can't even remember if one was) it would have gone to a .edu email account which is no longer accessible. LegalSmeagolianTheSecond (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You can try contacting Trust & Safety and see if you can prove your identity to their satisfaction. Maybe they'll reset your account password. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe see if you can gain brief access to the .edu account? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have tried that in the past and the institution is a real pain about reactivating. However, I think there might be a way for me to contact T&S to verify based off of some of my contributions (I have snuck photos of my cat on here, so maybe I could do some kind of cat ID verification). I will email them sometime today. Thanks for the suggestion. LegalSmeagolianTheSecond (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it is worth, cat ID verification made me laugh out loud. Appreciated today! Lulfas (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

It worked. @Voorts you can mark this resolved, thanks for the advice. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

 Declined. You (LegalSmeagolianTheSecond) are using proxies to edit Wikipedia instead of using the same ISP as LegalSmeagolian. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Move request

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

---

I have requested move for Government of the Grand National Assembly quite while ago and now the request is not relisted or done anything till now kinda abandoned. Could an uninvolved page mover/admin please close and perform the move? A$ianeditorz (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asianeditorz: Please post a closure request at WP:CR#Requested moves, which is the noticeboard and section dedicated to handling this type of request. Left guide (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks. A$ianeditorz (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Free Republic of Verdis

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

---

Globally blocked editor VerdisSupporter9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to re-create and re-add edits related to a social media project for a micronation called Free Republic of Verdis from Simple Wikipedia, evading a previous block: Special:Contributions/VerdisSupporter9. Disruptive editing which has been reverted and cautioned against by multiple editors on Simple Wikipedia and more recently here. Deletion forums are being spammed here and here; article templates removed here, spamming here, hostile behavior toward others here, among other disruptive edits. It appears the related accounts are attempting to move their disruptive editing from Simple Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia:

• VerdisSupporter9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is evading a global block put in place back in 2019

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

Attempted to erroneously redirect article and is recreating VerdisSupporter9's earlier edits

Thank you for taking a look at this. 2601:646:8081:8100:45D9:4B0F:EB46:70C (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Correction from DAndujar ^: I only added the internal link in your first remark, I'm not sure why I'm being added here for that. I created an edit for the Verdis page before VerdisSupporter9 was banned from the platform, and I redid them after the page was defaced by protesters. (This was after the page was recreated by a different individual. I am simply a 3rd party in this, who is just making edits that were previously (at least from what I saw) defaced on simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAndujar (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I find it interesting to see how you upgraded Verdis from a micronation to a full country here. The Banner talk 13:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia is a separate project, but it looks like someone has already proposed the article for deletion there. If this is a sock it looks like the original account, blocked on en.wiki, is VRDSupport. CMD (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know who that is! That account was blocked 6 years ago it says. I have a similar name that is all. Do you not think that could be a common occurrence when you google Verdis and see all the attention at the moment? VerdisSupporter9 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/daniel-jackson-unclaimed-land-croatia-serbia-verdis 2A00:23C5:2E0:3D01:A8E6:FC72:C58:AFA6 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Is this post about an English Wikipedia issue requiring administrative action, or about cross-wiki abuse that should be dealt with by stewards? User:VRDSupport is both ENWP-blocked and globally blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  I find it crazy I am being accused of sockpuppetry without any investigating. That persons account was blocked 6 years ago. VerdisSupporter9 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Verdis and Free Republic of Verdis are both admin-locked redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  There definitely has been some abuse in the past. I mean the president was 14 in 2019 but he seems to be in the media now, and a lot has happened since then. they even lived on the land and I am all for it. VerdisSupporter9 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked VerdisSupporter9 as a sock account given the behaviors and the block already applied on simple-en-wiki. If VerdisSupporter9 wishes to contest the block, they're welcome to file an appeal. Further evidence of sock puppetry and other accounts should be filed in a case at SPI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:CROIX

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

---

User is editwarring. In articles Antigua and Barbuda and List of national capitals. I removed unreliable source and add more reliable, and began discussion on talk page. But he reverts me. Anatoliy (Talk) 22:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

We are in an active discussion on the Antigua and Barbuda talk page and I and @162 etc. have repeatedly requested that he not reinstate his edits until after the discussion ends. The items he has removed have been discussed in the past and these discussions can be accessed from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Antigua and Barbuda talk page. He has provided no evidence that the sources are unreliable. CROIX^talk 22:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

But your source is unreliable. Please give more reliable source. CIA and Britannica are more relaible that unknown amateur website.--Anatoliy (Talk) 22:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

How so? The site does not disagree with the CIA or Britannica, rather, it is expressing the nature of the claim. These policies only exist in practice, the meaning of de facto. The site never says that St. John's for example is not the capital of Antigua and Barbuda, rather, it is saying that the status of St. John's as capital is only de facto in nature, which based on a check against the official laws website at https://laws.gov.ag (which in a discussion was determined to be an up-to-date source) is accurate. CROIX^talk 22:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't RSN, but axarplex.com is in no way a reliable source. It's anonymous, none of the site information pages are filled in, and it's not cited by any reliable sources. The link for its creators ("the Axarplex Institute") goes to wix.com and the only meaningful search result for that name is a Facebook page with 0 followers. Literally anybody could have created this website. Woodroar (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

While I share your concerns about the source- I'll avoid using it from now on, for the note of anyone reading this, they do appear to be transferring from an offline service to an online one, this may explain the status of their website. I also found information about their contacts and who is working there.

• https://www.axarplex.com/items/e-mail
• https://www.axarplex.com/items/our-team

CROIX^talk 00:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure is bold to report someone for edit-warring when you're past WP:3RR and they aren't. -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Penelope’s Bones

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

---

Hello. I am trying to create a new article entitled Penelope’s Bones on Wikipedia. The full title is: Penelope’s Bones: A New History of Homer’s World through the Women Written Out of It, by Emily Hauser, published by the University of Chicago Press (external link here). So this is a legitimate book published by a reputable publisher. However, the page has been blacklisted (link here). I am wondering if this title could be taken off the black list to allow for article creation. This would include the longer title as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Your issue is that you're using a curly instead of straight apostrophe. Try Penelope's Bones. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Steve Quinn was going to do it for you as an established editor but realized it's a curly quotes issue. Penelope's Bones is available and likely easiest. Star Mississippi 16:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is something for future reference. Thanks very much to both of you. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The existing Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic is amended, to narrow the scope to only apply to article titles and capitalisation. The contentious topic area is to be renamed "Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation", and the exact scope is available at the final decision page.
• The word limit restriction (discretionary) is added to the standard set of contentious topic restrictions for all contentious topics:

  Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes the indefinite topic ban of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Cinderalla157, SMcCandlish, and Dicklyon are limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed.
• Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) is warned for edit warring.

​​​ For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed

Paul F. Kisak is republishing Wikipedia articles reworded through AI

I bought Mythological Archetypes from this person by ordering through my local bookstore, but it is also available on Amazon. The chapters are reworded Wikipedia articles with the same information in the same sentences and sentence order. Some chapters even have "Further Reading" copied right in for topics the book does not discuss. The last dozen or so pages are full of Wikipedia URLs used as sources. There is zero original intellectual effort being put in to make this book. And this "author" has produced 200 books since 2024. 2600:6C56:7DF0:6C10:5C17:612D:49A4:3A48 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Are any of these books cited on Wikipedia? Does the book acknowledge Wikipedia per the CC attribution licence? 206.83.99.97 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Anybody can republish Wikipedia articles with any changes they want as long as they comply with the requirements at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. Donald Albury 01:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you do a search on Amazon, you can find plenty of books that are reprinted Wikipedia articles. Seems like a waste of money for the purchaser but there is nothing wrong with doing this. Of course, as soon as they are printed, they are out-of-date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This should be added to Wikipedia:Republishers, but I can't figure out how to get the information to fill out the fields there. Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If there are so many Wikipedia URLs in the book it looks as though the compiler has at least made an attempt to follow our licence conditions. Caveat emptor. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

User:GoldenBootWizard276

This user seems to have literally created over a thousand redirects of questionable utility, including Planes hit Twin Towers, which they've created three times over the past week and is currently tagged for WP:R3. They were warned by an admin for creating nonsense redirects recently. Could we get a WP:NUKE and maybe a block here? Thanks. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F3C6:CB9:911E:FBD7 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from mainspace until they communicate, which is not optional. Star Mississippi 03:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F3C6:CB9:911E:FBD7: @Star Mississippi: Please can you point out to me which redirects are "nonsense". Also I recreated the deleted pages because asilvering said that if I believed that the redirects were plausible search terms then I should recreate them. Even if the redirects were not plausible nothing I have done has been in bad faith so I should be unbanned. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

GoldenBootWizard276, these are all perfectly useless redirects.Nothing but clutter. How on Earth would you consider any plausible?
It doesn't matter that you did this in good faith; good-faith disruption is still disruption and a time sink, since it requires someone to clean up after you. As far as I'm concerned, this block is warranted and preventative and, quite frankly, considering you claim you do not undestand what is disruptive about your actions, I'd make it a full indefinite block. —  Salvio ^giuliano 17:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: These are absolutely plausible search terms. Do you really think no one would search "September the 11th"? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

They may search that but I find them unlikely to search Planes hit Twin Towers. CoconutOctopus talk 17:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: It is a simple term that accurately describes the event. For those who have heard of the attacks but cannot remember what the name is, this is a very useful redirect. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that anyone is out there and has forgotten the name "9/11" and instead searches "Planes hit Twin Towers". Its use as a redirect is next-to-none, as any google of that would give you 9/11 anyway. Regardless, this isn't about any one redirect but a pattern of creating bad ones. CoconutOctopus talk 17:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: I admit that I should have been more considerate as to the usefulness of the redirects I have created and I should have thought more beforehand about whether or not these redirects I have created were useful or not. But I have not created any redirects in bad faith and I have created many good redirects so I don't think that we should let a few bad apples ruin a whole bunch. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276, I think you might be misunderstanding the purpose of redirects. We're not trying to hard-code google search. Please see WP:RPURPOSE. -- asilvering (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

GoldenBootWizard276, no, not really. Not to mention that I do not understand why such a redirect, if needed at all, should point to September 11 attacks rather than September 11. —  Salvio ^giuliano 17:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing you've said here is convincing to me @GoldenBootWizard276 that you understand the goals and usage of redirects, but you're welcome to file an unblock and an admin will review it and make their own decision. Star Mississippi 19:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive user don’t accept to follow Wikipedia standards

Hello everyone. The user Yujoong is insisting in add a critics consensus on the intro of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Infinity Castle article, but no major aggregator has attributed a score yet for the film. I warned him that this was not correct, because in every major movie releasing globally, the critics consensus in the introduction is based on what most critics are saying, hence it’s need a major aggregator to list the review so we can see how critics overall see the movie. The user, however, insists in putting his personal opening on how he thinks that is the overall critics consensus on the, without any supporting source from a critics reviews aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. This is how every article for films work, we only add a critics consensus in the introduction when major aggregators show what most critics are saying.

I went to his talk page to make sure he was acting wrongly on the article, by trying to change the article object without discussion and trying to depict a critics consensus when there’s no one listed by major reviews aggregators. He not only ignored my warning instead of start a discussion on this matter, but also simple removed the warning from his talk page. Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYujoong&diff=1307093580&oldid=1307026049

The what’s next? He goes to my talk page to put a vandalism warning, trying to start some sort of war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepGuardi&diff=1307315881&oldid=1307096005

If you go to the history of the article you’ll him with multiple revisions, simply because he wants to add a “mixed” critics consensus when we don’t even have any major aggregator showing what most critics are saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer:_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie:_Infinity_Castle&action=history

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307101045&oldid=1307063341

here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307314022&oldid=1307311146

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307163475&oldid=1307114936

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1306919057&oldid=1306882539

So please if you can stop this user from disrupting the article. PepGuardi (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@PepGuardi, this is pretty straightforwardly a content dispute. Please attempt to resolve it by discussion on the article's talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe this issue is being made bigger than it needs to be. My edits were meant to improve the article. The page had several problems before and I worked on improving it including adding the "Reception" section. The editor PepGuardi reintroduced outdated and unsourced material such as calling the film “upcoming” [[81]][[82]] even though it had already been released, and describing reviews as “favorable” [[83]] without citing a reliable source. For the “critical response” part, I summarized the Reception section using the reviews that are currently available. These reviews clearly show both praise and criticism which supports describing the reception as “mixed.” There is no Wikipedia policy requiring us to wait for Rotten Tomatoes or other aggregators especially when they don’t yet exist and "reliable reviews" are already available. Per WP:LEAD, it is appropriate to summarize this in the lead.

I have also made it "clear" on his talk page that once aggregator scores such as Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic become available, I am fine with adding them. My goal is simply to keep the article accurate, sourced and neutral. Not to create unnecessary conflict. Selenne (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Block from Edit

Please I am blocked from edit(s) though I can't remember my Username & Password for and I just created another account with Username - Star Egejuru, yet I am not logged-in. Please unblock My-account now. 102.88.109.145 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, SuperMarioMan pblocked the /16 of this IP from article and talk spaces for two months ten days ago. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Which looks to be tied to 21 edits that were mostly talk page spam. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Star Egejuru and SuperMarioMan: I've created the account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Pal! Star Egejuru (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Giving EC to a bot

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

---

Hi, can we please give EC rights to User:GraphBot? It failed to update Ohio (see User:GraphBot/Conversion Errors) because it doesn't have the right. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Is there a reason we don't just have that perm grouped in with bot? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin According to the group permissions it should already be included. The list of permissions granted by bot rights includes Edit pages protected as "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access" (editsemiprotected) and

Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" (extendedconfirmed) 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait... the bot right comes with "Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" (extendedconfirmed)", I'm a bit confused why the bot couldn't edit Ohio. Maybe it's because the bot right is temporary? I'm not sure. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 14:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix The error message doesn't say anything about protection or missing rights, and the same error was produced for pages that weren't protected, e.g. Demographics of Burundi. Could another issue have caused the error, such as loosing internet connection? 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I find that somewhat unlikely, since it created the .chart and .tab pages in Commons before mysteriously giving this error. Usually if there is an error with GraphBot in my experience it doesn't create the .chart and .tab pages. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 14:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the code, it appears to be some kind of catch-all error message. Some more precise logging might help. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no idea why that happened. I'll take a look at the logs at let you know. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the error was that the page is protected:

2025-08-24T14:33:06.862954Z ERROR page_handler:run_on_page: graphbot::graph_task: Failed to update page Ohio: Page is protected

GalStar (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@GalStar: That's strange. Can you try logging into the bot manually and making a dummy edit to Ohio? If the edit saves, then the issue must be some check in the code that is assuming it can't edit the page even though it can. If the edit doesn't save, this is a MediaWiki issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=1307778826 GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@GalStar Are you using a bot password or Oauth to allow the bot to log into it's account? If so did you remember to grant the confirmed and extendedconfirmed permissions to the password/Oauth grant? 86.23.87.130 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the catch. I didn't grant it editprotected. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The "page is protected" error occasionally happens to User:DatBot too, and it's a mask for the 'real' error which is that the authentication drops: Your username or IP address has been automatically blocked by MediaWiki. The reason given is: :__NOEDITSECTION____NOTOC__ You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. '''''You are still able to view pages''', but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.'' Editing without an account from $1 is disabled as it is a [[private IP]] range. This is probably a result of a problem with your Internet connection. You may be able to edit if you [[Special:UserLogin|log in]] or [[Special:CreateAccount|create an account]]. . *Start of block: 20:42, 11 June 2025 *Expiration of block: no expiry set *Intended blockee: 172.16.0.76 Your current IP address is 172.16.0.76. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

I'm sure there's a way to root out the underlying cause but I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and it happens infrequently enough for it not to be a major concer. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh good point, auth tokens do expire, but then edits would stop being listed as being done by graphbot, which isn’t the case. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow I literally linked to that and looked right past it, didn't I. Guess I'll remove the right as redundant. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Also the expiration for bot rights is late september, do I have to apply for a extension? GalStar (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for revision deletion

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

---

I'm not entirely sure this belongs here, but this is neither a privacy violation nor a threat per se, nevertheless a grossly inappropriate edit summary: Special:Diff/1304035008. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

creating Talk:Niggas in Paris/GA2

Special permissions are needed to create Talk:Niggas in Paris/GA2. I would like to perform the review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• User:Anachronist, Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Ergo Sum

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Ergo Sum for Ergo Sum to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure on Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla

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

---

I tried raising the issue with this RfC closure with the closing editor, and they haven't offered any valid justification for their improper closure. The closing editor gives weight only to headcount and does not cite a single argument that could provide any sources to dispute the information in question. At best, it was supposed to be closed as "no consensus" or "consensus to keep in body and lead". Orientls (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Dionysodorus)

• Comment as closer: I closed this from WP:CR, along with a number of other discussions that needed closing, in order to help out with the backlog there. The close is well within policy. Orientls raised this on my talk page a few days ago, and I have already responded to their concerns at User talk:Dionysodorus#RfC closure. I would be grateful if anyone commenting here could take a look at that first.

When I closed this RfC, I had not noticed that it had previously been closed by Ophyrius, as can be seen in this version, but Orientls posted on Ophyrius' talk page to argue that the close was too early in User talk:Ophyrius#RfC close, and Ophyrius then reverted their close. After this, one more editor posted in favour of the measure, two posted against it. There has also been a conflict on the talk page as to whether KoshuriSultan's !vote should be struck through or not, in which Orientls has been involved. Yet Orientls has at no point actually commented on the RfC. This seems to me a very odd way of proceeding: not to comment on an RfC, but yet to take repeated actions behind the scenes to influence its outcome.

This whole issue seems to me to be a very minor dispute over placement of content within the article, and I am puzzled that it is considered necessary to appeal it to AN. It would be most appropriate at this point to accept the judgement of an uninvolved closer and to move on, rather than trying to use every means to reverse a perfectly reasonable and policy-consistent RfC closure. It is especially important that the normal process of an RfC should be respected in relation to a contentious area (South Asia). My closure is altogether based on the policy reasons raised in the discussion itself, and I find it difficult to see how this request can possibly meet the criteria for a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which explains that closures will not normally be overturned simply because the discussion is close or the closer is not an admin. Dionysodorus (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if the admins who have recently been involved on the page or its talk page (User:Ivanvector, Daniel Case, User:The Bushranger, User:Redrose64) have any thoughts? There is clearly a protracted editing dispute here, so there may be background that I am unaware of. Dionysodorus (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I would really like to see Asamboi elaborate on the concerns raised here, almost three weeks before the close. If there is any truth to this claim, the RfC result should be at least put on hold pending close scrutiny of the !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If it can actually be shown that anyone in the RfC was a sock or under a relevant topic ban at the time of the RfC, I'm certainly happy to revisit my close in light of that. But I don't think that this would necessarily change the result: my close was based on an assessment of the debate, taking into account the strength of the arguments presented, and was not based on a head count that would be undermined if the comments made by one user or another were struck out. (If I had thought that the closure of the RfC depended on the validity or invalidity of Asamboi's concerns, I would have asked Asamboi for clarification in the first place before closing the discussion.) Dionysodorus (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I did have a look through the users participating in the discussion at the time when I closed it, and I found no prima facie reason to think that any of them was a sock or anything like that. I don't think I found that any of the contributors looked suspicious, and I think all (or at least most) were extended-confirmed. Dionysodorus (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that this vague casting of aspersions is actually about User:Koshuri Sultan's active topic ban from Indian military history, and I don't think it affects the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that's probably right, given that Asamboi and others favouring "lead only" were trying to strike out Koshuri Sultan's !vote in the RfC (e.g. this edit, and see also the discussion at User talk:Asamboi#Striking), whereas Koshuri Sultan and Orientls restored it (e.g. this edit). Personally, I wouldn't have thought that a topic ban on Indian military history would apply to this article. But, if Koshuri Sultan's topic ban were considered to apply to this article, that would remove one of the votes against what I determined was consensus, and so would reinforce rather than undermine the consensus indicated in my close. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Shubhanshu Shukla is a group captain and test pilot with the Indian Air Force - he's a serving military officer. Koshuri Sultan's topic ban is: Koshuri Sultan is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed - emphasis added on the important part. The topic ban applies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If so, the consensus indicated in my close has a clearer majority of legitimate participants in its favour than I thought (i.e. 9 against 5, rather than 9 against 6). Dionysodorus (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger The topic ban does not apply here because the RfC is irrelevant to "Indian military history". Even the subject is irrelevant to "Indian military history". Wait for more years until his military career (on which Koshuri Sultan never commented on) becomes part of history. Orientls (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The suggestion that a topic ban from Indian military history doesn't apply to the biography of an Indian military officer so defies logic as to boggle the mind, and it certainly calls into question the motivation of an editor who would make such a comment. It is so far removed from reality that ... I don't even know what to say, I'm just so sick and tired of these same editors picking these same fights over and over. I'm going to review the recent Arbcom case and see what kind of sanctions could apply here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban is from Indian military history. If it includes officers who're serving today then it ought to be a topic ban from the Indian military full stop.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

That's part of "military history". Indian military equipment is included in the WP:CT/SA ECR topic area for "Indian military history", for instance - clarififed that when GS/SA was declared. "Military history" includes the present. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Only if that officer is a part of history then sure, however, this subject is not a part of history yet. There is a big difference between "Indian military" and "Indian military history". Same way, 2025 India–Pakistan conflict would not fall under "Indian military history" right now. The RfC wasn't about any "military", let alone any "Indian military history".

Finally, this comment was made days 5 before the topic ban,[84] so even if we assume that the RfC was related to Indian military history (it wasn't), then still there was nothing wrong with the comment. Orientls (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

...the present day counts as "military history". The definition of military history includes the present. That said, since the edit took place before the topic ban, this is moot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

What purpose does the word "history" serve if it includes the present day? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

History is made every day? It's a continual process. Yesterday is history. "Military Present" isn't a thing... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

At least two users in the debate have a confirmed history of sockpuppetry:

• User:Koshuri Sultan fka Based Kashmiri was previously blocked for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699/Archive.
• User:Editking100 remains blocked as a sockpuppet of IndicInsaan.

Some other users in the debate are also IMHO extremely likely to be sock/meatpuppets and you're invited to draw your own conclusions from the evidence I presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699/Archive#10 July 2025, but the SPI did not positively confirm this. Asamboi (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I warned Asamboi in that SPI filing that their repeated allegations of sockpuppetry were disruptive, and that if I saw any more claims of this sort that they would be blocked from editing ([85]). Since this is not just a similar report but effectively the same report (i.e. WP:FORUMSHOPPING) I have blocked them from editing. I'm also not happy to see Orientls here with another frivolous report (per the section Dionysodorus already quoted about not challenging closes only because the closer is not an admin, which this clearly is) but I'll have to come back to that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Dionysodorus mentions that the RfC (started 15 July) was once inappropriately closed under 12 days on 27 July,[86] which was then reopened on 3 August[87] and was closed again by 16 August.[88] It seems that the RfC wasn't even allowed to run for 30 days, and was closed in just 26 days. Why was there so much hurry? Orientls (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

As it says at in the lead at WP:CR, RfCs have no fixed length, and can be closed at any time after the discussion has stabilised: 30 days is just a rough guideline. In this case, the discussion had clearly stabilised, since there were no new comments after 6 August. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct link is Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration which says "30 days". You cannot close it sooner only because there are "no new comments" for days. Orientls (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The page that you have linked only mentions 30 days as the period that a bot assumes that an RfC will run for the purposes of removing the RfC tags, but also makes it very clear that "there is no minimum or maximum duration", and that the RfC should run until the discussion comes to an end and the participants or an uninvolved closer decide that it should be closed. There is no basis in policy for your statements that RfCs must always be left to run for 30 days, and the fact that an RfC has been inactive for a while (in this case, 10 days) is normally taken as suggesting that the discussion has run its course. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Orientls, please read rather than just link that section. It says the opposite of what you claim it says. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dionysodorus: You can argue in favor of an early RfC closure when the result is too obvious but that couldn't apply on this RfC. There is absolutely no justification as to why the RfC template wasn't allowed to stay for a full 30 days. It was there for only 21 days. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, it's simply not the case according to Wikipedia policy that an RfC has to be left to run for 30 days. Any discussion that appears to have stabilised can be closed by an uninvolved editor: see the lead in WP:CR, and WP:RFCCLOSE. (In any case, it wasn't 21 days; it was 32 days from the date of opening, or 25 days if you subtract the week during which the discussion was previously closed by Ophyrius.) It seems to me that these objections to the timing of the close are WP:LAWYERING, since they involve coming up with procedural objections in order to avoid accepting a perfectly legitimate and policy-based close. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

For some reason a lot of people seem to be commenting here without reading this discussion, relevant policy/guidelines or the RFC. Points have been made that have already been answered with links to policy/guidelines. Please, everyone, read before you write. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved (Shubhanshu Shukla)

• Overturn - The closure appears to be based on vote count. There appears to be a lack of counter argument against the sourced content. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is a simple question of content. The disputed information is well sourced and the consensus was, rightly, to include it. At issue was whether to place it in the lead. Therefore the prevailing policy is WP:ONUS, which means that removing the disputed information from the lead while keeping it in the body was the policy-compliant outcome.—S Marshall T/C 05:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closer stated that the majority are in favour of the consensus they found, not that the consensus was based on the majority of voters. I can't see an policy based argument to overtirn the close, and the close itself appears to correctly interpret policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just to clarify my comment, from my reading of the close it wasn't done by head count. That a head count was done doesn't immediately mean that was how the consensus was found. The closer found that the more convincing arguments happened to come from the majority, rather than basing the consensus on a vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  There also lots of talk of the close being to early, this is not the case. It had been open for over a month, or nearly a month with it being closed for a period of time, and no new comments had been added for over a week and a half. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn - I don't see any policy-based justification to exclude the reliably sourced information. Just because there are more people voting on one side, it doesn't mean you have to favor it. This was after all a premature closure, the RfC could have been relisted  minimum. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  RfCs are not relisted. This isn't AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn - per WP:NOTVOTE. The closer made zero analysis of the strength or weaknesses or each sides arguments as is required by WP:DETCON and merely engaged in a headcount. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The RfC was closed with an outcome that matches the consensus in the discussion. It isn't enough to argue that the closer did a vote count; it needs to be argued that because the closer did not properly determine consensus—and this is made evident by the closer "counting votes" instead of analyzing the discussion to determine consensus—the recording of the consensus is wrong. Namely, it is possible and more often the case than not that the outcome arrived at after a vote count coincides with the consensus outcome.—Alalch E. 14:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as a perfectly reasonable close. I'm very unimpressed by the multiple comments saying that this was just decided on a votecount, when one only has to read the closing statement to see that it was not. And the RFC is about whether the content is suitable for the lead section. There is no need to disprove it to decide that it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn - The information that is doubtful or disputed can be removed from the lead but this was not the case with the information that was discussed in this RfC. Along with that, we are seeing that the close was also technically wrong since it was carried out too early . Lorstaking (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  If any information is doubtful then it shouldn't be in the article at all. But that wasn't the question that was asked in this RFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as the close is perfectly fine and judges the consensus reasonably well. JavaHurricane 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I am perplexed by the rationale provided for overturning this close. The original close was fully within the bounds of acceptability and consistent with established standards. No compelling justification has been presented to demonstrate that the decision was improper or flawed. Accordingly, the reversal appears unwarranted.- Nemov (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't get the "didn't explain at all," given that the references to the strength of the arguments and WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE are referred to as supports right there. I see nothing that meets the burden for an overturn. Nor am I convinced by the "not 30 days" argument. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The !vote count just appeared to be one factor along with weighing the strength of arguments. Was closed after a reasonable amount of time when the discussion at largely stopped. Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I see no basis for the argument that the closer only performed a headcount. The arguments to place the cost in the lead are decidedly weaker: this is a biography, and covering detail not within the purview of the subject needs justification that wasn't provided; also, the lead is a single short paragraph at the time of writing, making the due weight concern stronger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Mentioning the vote count in a close is not the same thing as closing solely based on vote count, especially when the closer describes the relevant policies in the very same sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Involved (Shubhanshu Shukla)

• Overturn - Yes the "closer stated that the majority are in favour of" something, but RfCs are WP:NOTVOTE. Even the statement above by Dionysodorus, together with mass canvassing in their favor, does not seem to address the concerns raised by OP. Wareon (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as the only result that aligns with WP:BLP and WP:DUE. Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn: As per WP:NOTVOTE, with the discussion close being about vote count rather than arguments given. Also, considering how much discussion was going on, the RfC should have stayed open for some more time. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

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

A recall petition has passed

The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Ergo Sum for Ergo Sum to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator recall. Sohom (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Questioning the suitability of Gheus to be an AfC reviewer

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

---

I came here as recommended by @Rosguill, since I have concerns about @Gheus being a suitable AfC reviewer. I would like the admins to reconsider this advanced user right given to the user. Here are the details: The user had declined an article draft submitted by me, and chosen the reason Declining submission: npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone as their justification, which did not make much sense to me, given the article was written in a fairly neutral tone. I understand that there can be disagreements about neutrality, and also that the stated reasons may not always perfectly reflect what the reviewer was thinking. However, the subsequent AfD nomination by the same reviewer made me further suspect that the user, as an AfC reviewer, did not spend any reasonable time to review this article. In the nomination, the user claimed that the article had not changed since the last nomination, which clearly was wrong. I shared the diffs in the AfD discussion showing that the article had changed substantially since the last nomination. Then I delivered a feedback on the user's talk page, which was not responded and got deleted by the user. When I brought this up on the users request about the renewal of the rights, I received this somewhat adversarial response, with links to two assays that are completely unrelated to this situation. (The user might incorrectly be assuming that I'm someone else, but regardless, the tone of response is not one I would expect to see from someone who is an advance rights holder on the English Wikipedia.) Please note that the outcome of that particular AfD does not matter at all, all I am asking is that if someone has volunteered to review AfC articles, then they actually spend some time to actually review them before they make a decision about an article. Declining or accepting articles just for the sake of clearing a backlog without properly reading them is not constructive. I had spent significant time to save that article, and Gheus ruined the chances for it to get a proper review. After it is declined once having waited so long, it is very unlikely that another reviewer will pick it up to review anytime soon after the last decline. And I believe AfC is very important, especially for newcomers to the project. So I would have expected an advanced rights holder to act more responsibly, and be more receptive to feedback, and be more open to responding to messages from draft submitters. The example of behaviors I see here might be indicative of the fact that this user is not suitable to hold this responsibility. Thank you for considering this request. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The article is written in a promotional manner. I would have declined it also, regardless of notablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I never interacted with you before the review of your draft, so you should assume good faith. After the review, you just moved it to mainspace yourself ([89]) - If you disagreed, you should have submitted it for another review to prove me wrong, but you didn't. Why are you so upset, and what is your relation to this advertising executive? This is the wrong noticeboard for such discussions and should be moved to WP:ANI. If you are questioning Rosguill's admin actions, you need to use Wikipedia:Administrative action review. If you are questioning my reviews, then you need to show a pattern of consistently poor judgment. You have to do the legwork, the community won't do that for you. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this complaint. Gheus declined the draft. The author disagreed and published it anyway. Gheus then took it to AfD (which seems to me entirely consistent with their decline), and from that the author concludes that Gheus "as an AfC reviewer, did not spend any reasonable time to review this article". How does that follow?

And even if – purely for the sake of the argument – that decline was wrong, how do we get from that to "the fact" (!) that Gheus should not be reviewing at AfC or, apparently, at NPP either? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I only have concerns about the user's AfC reviewing actions, as I explained above. The NPP right allows them to do AfC reviews, that's why I added my oppose statement there. But I appreciate your feedback. I might be missing something. To be clear, I have no objection for Gheus to be a new page patrol. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

After it is declined once having waited so long, it is very unlikely that another reviewer will pick it up to review anytime soon after the last decline. Honestly, if you didn't engage with the reviewer before resubmitting on how else the article can be improved, it would most likely be declined pretty quickly again unless there is marked difference in how the subsequent reviewer reviews the draft. The question is, did you ask how else can the article be improved instead of demanding for it to be re-reviewed while assuming that Gheus did not spend an appropriate amount of time reviewing it? (Am sorry, but the feedback you gave, I read it more of like a demand) – robertsky (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Robertsky for the feedback, this is helpful. Given that three neutral editors disagree with me, I withdraw this request. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Script block

Hello, I wanted to make an edit on the page 2025 Tour de France Femmes to add the route to the infobox, since it is now available. However, I wasn’t able to do it because a script blocked me, saying I had made too many edits in a short period of time. But this was actually my first edit of the day. Is this an error, or did I miss something? Thanks.

Translate with Google Guillaumrs (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The route has (now) been added by you, one minute after you wrote your message here. Were you logged in when you tried to add it the first time? Lectonar (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Lectonar. Yes, I checked. Guillaumrs (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Alors, j'ai aucune idée :)...a glitch perhaps Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)