Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive376

Enforcing an edit via constant reverts

Bejakyo has made an edit to Wales Green Party and is enforcing that edit via reverting any removal of it, despite the edit being disputed. Attempts to resolve this on the issue on the article's talk page appear unconstructive, with the editor refusing to engage with WP:BRD. Helper201 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

user:helper201 is misrepresenting what is happening. It is not a contributation I added as you can see here [1] and the aspect was not touched for six months unti [2] which only updated the holder of the role. I would appricate you self-strike such a comment claiming I added something I did not Bejakyo (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

the first removal/readdition was this removal, by Helper201 Bejakyo (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo: re. this edit summary, unfortunately, WP:ONUS says no such thing. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Unblock process

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 appeal my block.

I have taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and its policies. I have reviewed Wikipedia's editing rules thoroughly and will ensure to follow them. I commit that I will not publish my own personal opinions as facts, cite necessary sources, and respond promptly when I become aware of new messages on my talk page. I apologise for not responding on the ANI page; I did not see the message to do so until too late. Thank you. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You had an appeal denied by @Yamla: a week ago; in it he told you

Spend time making WP:EDITREQ on article talk pages. Once you have several hundred of these across at least six months, feel free to contest your block. Your edits will be reviewed to see if the problem is resolved. Had you addressed the concerns when asked, there might have been no need for the block.

You should follow this advice. CoconutOctopus talk 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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

MS NOW

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

I would welcome some help in cleaning up the RM banner from MS NOW, the new title for the former MSNBC. In protecting the article during a cut-and-paste and move war, I inadvertently provoked a formal move discussion, which I have closed early as a clear WP:SNOW, and went ahead and moved However, the banner persists, and there are catgegories to move and a great deal of link-checking, which must be done carefully to ensure that no anachronisms are introduced. Since I rarely close formal move discussions, my skills are probably not what they should be for something this complex. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the bot took care of the banner, but the careful category and link clean-up is needed. Given the newness of the rebranding, I don't think there's any harm in a deliberate, careful clean-up that takes into account dates and times of tenure and events. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Note: Please note that any cleanup work on this matter should be paused until the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 November § MS NOW has concluded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Appeal from BlackJack

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 have posted an unblock appeal at my talk page. As requested by Asilvering, I've prepared this summary version for presentation to the community at WP:AN.

I fully accept that I was wrong to breach WP:SPI, and I decided six months ago that I want to edit as BlackJack only. I've admitted several old accounts for blocking, and I'm 99% sure there are no others. I've also moved across to Simple where I've made over 6,300 contributions, mostly to [salvage and rebuild the cricket coverage there. In addition, as Simple is plagued by bad edits, I've joined the cleanup efforts. These have included vandal-fighting and, last month, I was granted rollback.

Meanwhile, I have created only one new account, BeachBoyJack (BBJ), which is completely legit as explained in the appeal, and on the relevant user pages. I've been given CU clearance for the last six months.

The essence of my appeal is WP:ROPE. I have guaranteed that I will edit only as BlackJack (or as BBJ on a shared server). If I should breach my promise after being reinstated, I know I would be globally banned, and rightly so. That would mean losing access to Simple as well as enwiki. So, the rope is only for lassooing vandals.

I've explained in the appeal what I can bring to enwiki. This has been recognised by several editors who have very kindly posted these comments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Asilvering is proposing a conditional unblock, and I accept any conditions required. This has been discussed at the appeal. Please note that Asilvering pointed out the priority of GNG ahead of all sport SNGs. As I replied there, I now agree with that approach, because I think microstubs with minimal sourcing should be redirected to suitable lists. I've tried to do that at Simple, where the same issue exists on a lesser scale.

I'm happy to answer any questions raised. I'll ping from my talk page. Please bear in mind that I have admitted guilt for wilful breaches of SPI, although I never indulged in multiple voting. Note also that I have made real progress over the last six months, and that I wish to continue making progress at both Simple and enwiki. As I said above, the essence of this appeal is WP:ROPE.

Thank you. Jack (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC). (Copied by Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC))

I encourage everyone to view BlackJack's Talk page before deciding, as there are some Simple editors who've come across specifically to support their appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support - This is basically the situation that WP:OFFER is for, and this editor has done just about as much as anyone can do while blocked on English Wikipedia to demonstrate they'll be an asset to English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This is an intelligent, self-reflective and unself-exculpatory appeal. Much water has passed under the bridge, and their work at Simple demonstrates how productive they can be. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support because I've just realised that I haven't done this yet, see Talk for reasoning. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Good work at Simple, good appeal, endorsed by folks I respect both projects. BlackJack, I hope you have learned that you can get a lot more done on this project using only one account than you can with many. Toadspike [Talk] 16:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support, the appeal is clear and BlackJack has done the work to show they've learned from the sanctions rather than simply asserting they have. Almost a perfect SO situation. I think the single account to which they've already agreed is sufficient condition wise, but am fine with whatever community consensus is. Star Mississippi 18:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support, with the restriction against creating additional accounts as posited by Asilvering. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. They have been putting in solid work at Simple English Wikipedia, and seem to have already accepted the account restriction. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:48, 18 November 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.

Change to the CheckUser team, November 2025

The Arbitration Committee acknowledges the resignation of Spicy (talk · contribs) from the CheckUser team and thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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

New community-designated contentious topic

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.

---

Per consensus at VPR, we have a new community-designated contentious topic for weather events, broadly construed. Administrators are authorized to use the standard set of contentious topic restrictions in this topic area; restrictions should be logged at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Weather events. (Please let me know if any part of the setup is incomplete.) Toadspike [Talk] 16:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Weather events? At this rate the whole site will be comprised of contentious topics. (Not necessarily a bad thing, given its use in confronting disruption.) — Czello ^(music) 16:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a link to the discussion? I hardly see how a tornado could cause an edit war. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion was closed here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The link is at the top of the CTOP page. As for the other question: Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado comes to mind. Toadspike [Talk] 18:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I hardly see how a tornado could cause an edit war. Oh you sweet summer child... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Surely they wouldn't come to blows over Capital letters? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Some things have gone down in this topic area... Z E T A^C 19:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a few factors that make weather events a perennially thorny topic (they're often international in scope with varying naming and classification conventions, and there are open-ended methodological questions about how to tabulate damages and casualties), but at the end of the day the most significant factor may simply be that they are a breaking news event with often traumatic implications for the affected areas, and this draws in both swathes of new editors and diligent regulars who are trying to make changes quickly, either of which may be inclined to feel a misplaced sense of ownership over the topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike: I think this needs to be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger and @HurricaneZeta, thanks for pointing this out. I have now added it to the list. Toadspike [Talk] 19:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see where this general topic would stir up stormy debates. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I hate to edit when feeling under the weather. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please, someone, put this thread out of its misery before we get any more awful puns. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 19 November 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.

Saratherohan Linkspamming

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've just stumbled across Saratherohan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s activity when some of it showed up in my watchlist. This user's activity seems to be almost if not entirely (relatively sophisticated) linkspam for a variety of businesses. Per their talk page, they've been called out for this previously. This seems like it may warrant administrative action, but wasn't 100% clear enough to me to take straight to AIV, so I'd be interested in others' opinions. Apologies if this is the wrong venue.

Sample diffs:

• Wood carving
• Rectification
• Wellness tourism

Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think ANI is better? GarethBaloney (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Also looks a little bit like they asked ChatGPT for a short descriptive paragraph, but there's not enough text to be sure... Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For example, persistent promotion of levantiques.com:

February 2025:Saudi Vision 2030: three paragraphs to lead up to linking levantiques.com, with the edit summary We have added content regarding Saudi Arabia focus on Hotel sector under its Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 to reduce dependency on oil based economy[3] - immediately undone as promotional

April 2025, Majlis[4] - survived until today

November 2025, Wood carving[5] - reverted today. NebY (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. The account has done nothing at all other than citation spam for at least the last four years, and they have already been amply warned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 20 November 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.

Potential LTA problem

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 user was just created [6] with the name As if I never evade my blocks. When this user registered, it did not start editing. This is clearly a sleeper account... Spiderspike (talk) 18:34, 21 November 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.

Arbitration motions regarding Lightbreather

The Arbitration Commitee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (Lightbreather: Gun control topic-ban) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Remedy 3 (Lightbreather: Restricted to one account) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Remedy 5 (Lightbreather: Reverse topic ban) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

The interaction bans assumed by the Arbitration Committee in Remedy 6A (Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)) of Lightbreather are rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 18:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Lightbreather

ltbdl, unban 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.

---

ltbdl is appealing their block under the standard offer. However, they are WP:3X-banned, so their unblock review requires community consensus. Yamla has determined that there is no obvious evidence of recent sockpuppetry. The text of their appeal is below.

in june 2024, i was topic banned from post-1992 american politics and gender-related disputes for some very stupid comments that i regret.

i made edits in direct contravention of my topic bans (for example, [7], [8], [9]), knowing full well that i could be blocked for this. when i was blocked for this, i did not wait 6 months and appeal. instead, i was impatient, and over a period of more than a year i made sockpuppets, user:clubette and user:a ton of bricks, without disclosing they were my own accounts, and used those accounts to violate my topic bans as well. these were foolish things to do, and i apologize for them.

going forward, i pledge to stay within the bounds of my topic bans, and to never use alternate accounts without disclosing they are mine. thank you for your consideration of this unblock request. ltbdl (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as a last chance, on the condition of a one-account restriction (which they appear to be okay with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I am undecided because of the severity of the recent misconduct and the lack of a convincing explanation about what has changed with this editor. After racking up two topic bans and an indefinite block for repeated and knowing topic ban violations, this person created two sock accounts that together made over 900 edits. This was a prolonged pattern of disruptive and deceptive behavior, and this person must have been aware every time they clicked the "Publish changes" button that they were violating policy. I want to know why we should believe that this person has changed from a deceiver to an honest person in just a few months. I am unconvinced by their very brief statement. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, you are of course welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but someone who has managed to take the standard offer has already shown that they have changed from the sort of person who impatiently creates multiple sockpuppets to evade topic bans. That's precisely what WP:SO is about. -- asilvering (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering, as WP:SO says, This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you, especially if you have not provided any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked. All I am asking for is a persuasive reason, not boilerplate that I find unconvincing. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support unban. Based on their response to my question on their talk page, I am hopeful that ltbdl has become a different, more collaborative, more patient person. They have a track record of contributing on other projects without issue. I think this is sufficient for an unban. ltbdl, please for everyone's sake stay far, far away from the topics you are banned from. Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Conditional Support with retention of both topic bans and a low tolerance for breaches given both the socking and a history of forgetfulness. The standard offer concept has to have some meaning (hence the overall support) but there needs to be strong evidence of collaborative editing before a return to contentious topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ltbdl's descent into disruptive editing and sockpuppetry was abrupt and inexplicable, and her desire to return to constructive editing appears equally so. One way of looking at that is that whatever quirk of decisionmaking made her think all of this was a good idea has come and gone, and she can go back to being a constructive editor. On the other hand, the lack of a compelling explanation for her actions gives no reason to trust that she won't have a second departure of this sort. I don't see a need to set a dreadfully high bar for an unban where the user is actively improving other projects and hasn't done something truly heinous, but there is still some bar to meet, and the current unban request lacks any substance to speak of. Oppose for now pending a better explanation of what led to this monthslong pattern of misconduct. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Another way of putting this, on reflection, is that ltbdl's overall demeanor throughout all of this has been that she doesn't take any of it very seriously, and I don't see that as having changed in what she's said so far. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I had similar concerns, which prompted me to ask the question that got this response. I understand if that's not enough for everyone, but it's enough for me. Either way, I hope that this discussion will be a bit of a wake-up call for ltbdl, who cannot simply continue as before. Toadspike [Talk] 14:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the world here. Even a cursory explanation of what was going through her head when she violated her TBAN, when she socked, when she misused her talkpage after being blocked, when she made this weird comment after being warned for that, etc., would probably get me at least to neutral here, if not to support. We see unban requests where people talk about going through a tough time in life, misunderstanding social norms, not taking things seriously enough. Hell, I was the most enthusiastic advocate for an unban request for a user who openly admitted that his banworthy conduct had been because he was deliberately trolling the community and violating our trust. (He remains in good standing 2 years later!) But trust is what it comes down to. A big part of the reason we ask for six months without socking is that that time commitment is an indication that the user takes Wikipedia seriously, which buys them some trust. I'm not convinced that ltbdl takes Wikipedia seriously. Her conduct before her block suggested the opposite. Her conduct for months after it further suggested that. I could be convinced that something's changed, but what she's said so far doesn't establish that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

My own tolerance for unblocks in this kind of case is "how far do I think this editor can get before being reblocked, if they go right back to the same behaviour?" I think "being a dumbass in AMPOL/GENSEX while tbanned" is pretty low-risk in this regard, so I personally tend towards "eh, sure, whatever" over "yeah? prove it". -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support I'm willing to give them one last chance to make things right, although I definitely support putting them under a one-account restriction. I have similar views on the subject to asilvering. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin. I don't think socking is an unforgivable evil, but in general this user seems to not really give a hoot about the stuff that led to the problems in the first place, and seems to see policies/norms/etc as annoying formalities to be worked around (e.g. the unban itself being written in an extremely irregular all-lowercase format that virtually all editors take effort to avoid). jp×g🗯️ 07:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  All of their talk page messages have been in all-lowercase. Not following the "norm" of using capital letters in conversation is not a good reason to keep someone blocked. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  agreed (totally not biased...). the substance of her misconduct and appeal is not altered by whether or not she uses capital letters. however, i am inclined to agree that she doesn't seem to care all that much about any of this. tamzin makes a good point that there is no indication of what made ltbdl start being disruptive, nor any indication of what made her stop. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 14:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per ROPE and Toadspike, while AGF tells me they have a broken Caps Lock. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban. They seem to fully grasp what they did wrong, what topics they must not engage on, and are ready to be productive. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban - Per WP:ROPE. There's no major risk associated with unblocking someone and giving them a second chance. If anything, undoing any damage is easy and the block button is only a few clicks away. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 17 November 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.

Redirect from protected page

Template:Il ("Indigo Lima") is salted; please will someone make it a redirect to Template:Interwiki link, which I have just created? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Just have to ask first: is your {{Interwiki link}} functionally different from the existing {{Interlanguage link}}? I know it produces different output, but is the purpose the same? And could you have a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022 November 16#Template:Il and comment on if you expect any similar difficulty arising from the redirect? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Very different; and no—the new template will throw a prominent error message if used in main space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

To avoid confusion between both, could it be useful to have the shortcut be {{iwkl}} instead? (to differentiate it from both Template:Interwiki link and Template:Invisible Wikidata link, the latter of which already uses {{iwl}}). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 (Johnpacklambert topic banned) of Conduct in deletion-related editing is amended as follows:

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed, except for categories for discussion; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Should Johnpacklambert fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area, any uninvolved administrator may remove the categories for discussion exception (therefore reinstating the topic ban for all deletion discussions) as an arbitration enforcement action. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After twelve months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, this provision allowing for reinstatement by an uninvolved administrator will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

User talk:My Little Pony Friendship Magic Roto

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

---

Can someone revoke talk page access for this user? Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. CoconutOctopus talk 11:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

( peanut gallery comment) BTW, this is an LTA. It's best to send them straight to m:SRG for locking. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 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.

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to allow the use of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE) for community-imposed general sanctions, if the community also assigns those requests to AE. Comments on the motion are welcome at the amendment request.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

Help with interpreting discussion resolved by admin on contentious topic page

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

---

There was recently a discussion that was closed by a moderator on the Gaza Genocide talk page here:Talk:Gaza_genocide#"Consensus_there_is_genocide"_in_lead. Editors, including myself, are not entirely clear how to move forward and what the result means for the article, so at the suggestion of another editor I'm asking for some help with how to proceed. The relevant follow-up discussions between editors including myself is here: Talk:Gaza_genocide#Result of the previous RfC Originalcola (talk) 23:18, 23 November 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 - Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Hordaland

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.

---

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

Hordaland is a deceased editor. The home page is locked. On the page is a URL hijacked by spammers. It should be modified to make safe. The old link is readabilityofwikipedia dot com and the new link is readability.nl -- per project Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#readabilityofwikipedia.com - thanks. -- GreenC 17:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 25 November 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.

Temporary accounts: block treatment

With the advent of the new Temporary accounts, are we ok with treating them as an individual user when blocking? The point is, with a previous IP Address we couldn't block indefinitely as it could be multiple different users posting under that IP, so blocks were always limited in length of time. Are we confident this is an individual user,? Can we issue Indef blocks on them, if warranted? Clarification would be helpful. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If I've correctly understood (always a big 'if') these TA's, they're disposable, ie. issued once-only. They also expire after 90 days, so indef in practice means temporary anyway. And since that same TA isn't reissued to anyone else, there wouldn't seem to be any risk of collateral damage to innocent users? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alexf @DoubleGrazing Yes, you can indef block TAs just as you would block regular accounts. Though the account will expire within 90 days, the difference between a temporary block and an indef block can be important for issues like later block evasion. Toadspike [Talk] 11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for the info. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• On a related note, I'm finding I'm having to block multiple times for one person now: The temporary account(s), and the underlying IPs which sometimes create multiple TAs. One IP can easily create a half dozen TAs by clearing cache, meaning it would take 7 blocks to do what used to be able to be done with one block. This also means I now have to check the underlying IP for every TA that needs a block. This has actually increased the workload for admins; sometimes minor, sometimes in a larger way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Preach! It really puts the 'TA' in PITA. Also, there's a much greater chance of inadvertendly linking TAs to IPs as you toggle between the two when making blocks. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown You generally only have to block the most recent TA and the IP. @Ponyo No need to worry about that – the Foundation has given us permission to make back-to-back TA and IP blocks, even if this would implicitly reveal the IP of a TA. Toadspike [Talk] 06:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, you are going to find some IPs that actually have several TAs associated with them, and they are the same person. Easiest way is in a history of like minded edit warring reverts with an IP that clears their cache each session. Not sure if there is a way to find the reverse, which TAs are associated with a given IP< I assume that is a CU only tool. Trust me, if you patrol pages long enough, you will see what I'm talking about. I'm more inclined to just ignore the TAs and strike the IP undernearth, except then no one knows the TA was technically blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

And to think, all they had to do was make account registration mandatory for editing... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

My point is that once the cache is cleared, the older TAs can no longer be used, so there's no point in blocking them. Generally... And yes, simply blocking the IP is more efficient, but doesn't leave much of a paper trail. The benefit of back-to-back blocks is that we can reconstruct the IP info of a TA once it expires (after 90 days). Toadspike [Talk] 08:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting that it isn't against policy to note down IP information and share it with other people who have TAIV access. One can even create a TAIVwiki or a similar database. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: You can see all TA edits from an IP at Special:IPContributions. When you click on the IP that's revealed next to a TA, this should be what shows up. This even works on ranges, up to the rangeblock limit (/16 for IPv4, /19 for IPv6). I'd also recommend turning on auto-reveal if you haven't already. Saves a lot of clicks and the WMF has not set any particular standard admins need to meet to do that. (Once you have auto-reveal on, the IPs you reveal don't even get logged anymore.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin knows what they're talking about of course, but I feel I can add a nerdy clarification (as checkusers have access to this new log). Revealing IPs doesn't get logged while auto‑reveal is enabled, however, Special:IPContributions does still do some logging. That is, "viewed temporary accounts on [IP/range]" continues to be logged, whereas "viewed IP addresses for [TA]" is not logged. I don't know if that's a bug or feature, and don't really concern myself about it - it's one of the most uninteresting logs I've seen. But now you know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll out-nerd you with the quirk that setting auto-reveal applies globally (if you have a perm that grants global TAIV) but is logged only on the wiki where you do it. So when my current 90-day allowance expires, I could go reënable auto-reveal on, say, the Piedmontese Wikisource, and the only people able to see that would be stewards happening to check that wiki's log. You'd then see me in the enwiki log appearing to access TAs-from-IP but not IPs-from-TA, despite it appearing that my auto-reveal had expired. Apparently this is not a bug since the information is still logged somewhere, even if it's somewhere no one would ever look, and the only people this is ever expected to be of interest to are government regulators enforcing privacy laws, not CUs or stewards or OmbComm. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The harder thing to avoid, which I've almost done once or twice, and which Ponyo might be referring to, is putting a behavior-specific rationale like "vandalism on Example" in the block form for the IP, when that can only go with the TA. Someone really worried about this could probably do some CSS styling to have a different color on TA contribs versus IP. Worst-case scenario, though, an inadvertent disclosure is easily remedied via log deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There is definitely going to be accidental disclosure, it is unavoidable. We are compelled to justify each block, and it's better to do so in the log than trying to simple remember every block. It's part of WP:accountability, so we will see how this pans out. Thanks for the tip above, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie part 6

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Newsjunkie part 6

•  Requesting immediate archiving... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Chungli Ao language phonology charts (dispute resolution)

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.

---

• Chungli Ao language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oklopfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users continually strongly insist that we legitimately base the phonological charts of this article off of a source that is a bit dated and also poorly written when it came to the articulation of the palatal consonants, and also a had listed a supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" that is clearly non-existent according to the newer sources. They keep insisting we literally base the chart off of the old source's word-for-word description of the palatal consonant sounds (which they insist is a pure-palatal stop /cç/, /si/ allophone being a pure-palatal fricative [ç]). When meanwhile, newer sources (like Temsunungsang, 2021; Bruhn, 2010) list the sounds as palato-alveolar /tʃ/, [ʃ], and the supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" actually being an alveolar approximant /ɹ/. But yet any newer source I point too, they immediately criticize and delegitimize, just because the sources are not written like they would be as a phonological-description, like the main source they keep pointing to (Gowda 1972). Sure it would be much better if the newer sources were a phonological-description, but the more I imply that we should "work with what we have at the moment", the more they get pedantic and resistant and continue to promote the transcriptions of the older and poorly-written source. I have listened to several different speakers of the language, and based off of the audio, their pronunciation exactly matches what the newer sources state, rather than what the older sources state. Any assistance from an admin here would be quite helpful to solve this conundrum. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

As I said on the AN/I that you opened up:

Temsunungsang (2021) calls it a palatal affricate, not palato-alveolar. The top of International Phonetic Alphabet#Description explains why you're incorrect about symbol usage. Please stop misrepresenting sources. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You do not need to take every word verbatim. Sometimes linguists use the term “palatal” to either shorten the term “palato-alveolar”, or when broadly speaking since it is still considered to be partially palatal. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

In his 2025 paper he refers to the Changki affricate as palato-alveolar, so I can only assume he knew what he was talking about. Reinterpreting is WP:OR ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Says you. Based on opinion. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Which is exactly why Temsunungsang has been reached out to for clarification. Trying to force this through an administrative process is only time wasting for everyone. Learn some patience, please. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Why don’t you learn some patience and be open to other sources of info, that users would want to temporarily use during the waiting process that are still fairly accurate. Besides your own, which may not be consistent with newer sources. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Because you are reinterpreting those sources, which is antithetical to building an encyclopedia. If the paper does not say palato-alveolar, you cannot either. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reinterpreting, as long as it is feasible. And in this case it is. You just can’t help yourself because you are way too rigid and stubborn. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you continuing to show your incivility and inability to drop the stick. It is going to make anyone else reviewing this have a much easier time. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Like anybody's winning here? Fdom5997 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Admins can't weigh in on content disputes on admin noticeboards (that's not what they're for), plus this really looks like forum shopping. I've already gone into the appropriate options for resolution here and none of those involved AN.

I'm worried that you're destined for a boomerang. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like forum shopping given they now have two posts up on two different administrator noticeboards. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought you said that it did not belong in ANI. So I moved it here. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You were also told where you could go for content disputes, which was not AN and which you still haven't tried to engage with TwoNineNineOne (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on this comment here, Fdom is well aware of where he should go. TwoNineNineOne (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I double checked my post just in case I wasn't clear, but I really think I was.

I definitely said you should be exploring either dispute resolution or third opinion processes - I also included links to both so you could easily find out more about them, decide on an option then get the ball rolling.

The reason it doesn't belong at ANI is because those other processes exist and haven't been tried yet.

If an editor refuses to engage with dispute resolution for example, that would be a different matter and could be considered a behavioural problem - admins deal with these behavioural problems, not content disputes.

They're volunteers too and have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise they'd never be able to get anything done!

Wikipedia content is decided by editor debate and consensus, that's normal and happens every day. People disagree on content so we have processes to sort that out without needing to bother admins.

Admins deal with editors who can't/won't engage with this set process. That's not normal and needs intervention.

Does that make more sense? Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic bans proposed on COIN

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 discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN) has reached a consensus that topic bans should be imposed. How should this be progressed further? The guidance on the COIN does not explain how to proceed once consensus that a COI exists has been achieved. cagliost (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Per WP:CBAN, Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Put it another way: not at WP:COIN. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. cagliost (talk) 10:32, 27 November 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.

Backlog of SPI cases

A significant backlog of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations exists, with some cases pending for 2-3 months. Various cases require action, including closing CU-completed cases, archiving closed cases, assigning clerk assistant to pending cases, and reviewing open and CU-hold cases by experienced admins. ~2025-36942-19 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm here to have a bot temporarily disabled on the Hurry Up Tomorrow cover image

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.

---

• File:The Weeknd - Hurry Up Tomorrow.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If a bot is enabled, I can't upload an album cover that doesn't contain the Parental Advisory label. So can you please do exactly what I think you're gonna do? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a bot owner, and you were pretty vague in explaining the issue, but have you tried WP:FFU? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Your request is unable to be parsed. What bot? Why can't you upload? Why does the label not need to be on the cover? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Most album covers in the pages don't have the Parental Advisory warning label. For example, We Don't Trust You. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That happens, but that doesn't mean it's a standard to exclude it. And that still doesn't answer what bot are you requesting be disabled? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 07:58, 27 November 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.

Arbitration motion regarding amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following: enforcement requests and appeals from enforcement actions arising from community-imposed general sanctions (including community-designated contentious topics), if the community has assigned those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 19:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope