User talk:Asilvering

How can people tell if a citation isn't reliable? --I am NewestPiano (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi NewestPiano! This is something that really just comes with time and experience here, you learn which are accepted and which are not. Generally speaking, if it is a source I have not come across yet, I will do a self-check that they pass WP:RS concerns (not a blog, YT video, reddit, etc.), and then check to see if they are included in the list of perennial reliable sources that have previously been discussed/decided upon. Besides that, you can always ask for comment/consensus on the article's talk page from more experienced users. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @NewestPiano: If you have a question about a specific source for a specific context, it usually doesn't hurt to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. It often helps to search the source publication name in the archives search box of the reliable sources noticeboard or a relevant WikiProject talk page to see what editors may have said in the past. Similarly, there are several WikiProject source lists which provide info on domain-specific sources. Left guide (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Asilvering, I have returned. I am asking you for advice on whether or not I should re-request pending changes reviewer now, or if I should wait until 1 month has passed. Thanks! --MosquitoDestroyer (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mosquito, LTNS! :) Did you give up your permissions? Looking at your user rights, it says that specific permission was revoked per your request. Is everything ok? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, Im reviewing the article John of Tella and i encountered a NPOV issue. I'm really unsure on how to handle this situation. Can you pls help me? Thanks, Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Warriorglance, I just quickly skimmed over the GA review, but don't see where/what you need help with an NPOV issue there. Could you please provide a little more detail? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 It's regarding the last point, like the comparison between John and Ephrem. Specifically, regarding the portrayal of Ephrem in the bad light. If an average reader was to read this, They would automatically identify Ephrem as the bad guy coz the narrative is like that. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Like, if a person has committed a lot of crimes, do we specifically say that he is a bad person? Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see the conversation between you and the other editor, and it seems everything is remaining civil and cordial, although you have not replied to Hogshine's latest changes and comment yet. As far as what Wikivoice should say, that depends fully on what the sources say. We can only add content from reliable sources, so if the sources are worded that way, that is how the article needs to be worded also. Please note that I have not read the article or all the sources to see what they say, I am basing my comment purely on the review page itself. I would suggest that if you don't think Ephrem was a "bad guy", then you need to find sources that say he wasn't a bad guy. Another editor's opinion is not going to change that. I see you already linked WP:NPOV in your conversation, but also be careful of (or discuss with the other editor) using WP:PEACOCK wording or synthesizing content not specifically stated in the sources. Otherwise, we are not going to sugar-coat someone's criminal past for the sake of "it makes them look like a criminal", especially if the sources paint him in that same light. I hope this helps, feel free to ask if you need more help/details/etc. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources do say like that. Well, I thought it would be something like "According to historian X, he is considered..." So, there should be no change in the wording. Thanks a lot for the help! Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How do we edit a page name? For instance, George Riley (abolitionist) should probably be George Putnam Riley or George P. Riley as he is referred to in publications and advertisements for his speeches. --Rrpie (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rrpie, we edit page names by moving the page itself. I've done this one for you. -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you can work with this investigation again as the open cases are piling up. This user was known as ThijsStoop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fairyspit ~2026-10620-41 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How I can share information hare --Muhammad shafique ch (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Name: Muhammad Shafique - From: Azad Kashmir (AJK) - Profession: Teacher - Qualifications: - BS (Math) - UoAJK - BEd - AIOU - MA Political Science - UoAJK - Caste: Gujjar - Religion: Muslim Muhammad shafique ch (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad shafique ch, unfortunately Wikipedia is not Facebook or a job search site. Is there something encyclopedic that you wish to contribute? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Helle l use this app on my phone. Is this option best for my phone or no???? --Ahma Farzan (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Ahma Farzan, could you please clarify what option you are asking about? Are you asking if Wikipedia is safe to use on your phone? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ahma Farzan: I suppose that depends on which type of phone you are using, since that would determine which apps you have access to. H:MOBILEAPP and List of Wikipedia mobile apps may have additional information you need. Left guide (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Asilvering! Although I am not sure if this is the appropriate forum, I would like to ask a question. I am seeking guidance on an editorial dispute regarding the relevance of including a Second Circuit Court of NY copyright infringement appeal decision for the film and novel The Light Between Oceans (see Wiki links below). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Light_Between_Oceans_(film)&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Light_Between_Oceans&action=history Your suggestions on how to proceed with this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Elibon9 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Elibon9, it looks like you're being reverted because you have a COI. You can use WP:ERW to propose changes on the article talk page instead. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I hope you feel better. Elibon9 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you please take a look at this? I filed it about 9 days ago, which is not an egregiously long wait, but they're now trying to add other editors (perhaps also their accounts) to the list, which is a waste of time for those who have to investigate. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Aesurias, I'm quite ill right now, so anything that can't be resolved in five minutes between naps is going to need another admin. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Aaaargh no, I'm so sorry to hear! Be well. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Four years! ...

Precious

Four years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain the hierarchy of wikipedia? The only role I know a lot about are admins. --72011copperfan2 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi 72011copperfan2, and welcome to Wikipedia. There is no real hierarchy here, as everyone is treated equally and has equal say. That being said, some users do have access to additional tools because the community believes we can trust them not to misuse those tools (certain user permissions, admins, bureaucrats, arbiters, etc.), but they are not "above" or "more important" than anyone else, and those rights can always be taken away by the community if the user abuses them. Was there something in particular you were interested in learning about? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Who leads wikipedia? 72011copperfan2 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

No one! -- asilvering (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you a admin @Asilvering? Also when will I get the right to edit restricted articles? 72011copperfan2 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey @72011copperfan2, you currently are able to edit semi-protected article. Once you hit 500 edits, you will gain the ablility to edit extended-confirmed protected articles. And yes, asilvering is indeed an admin. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 20:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

What about this page Ali Khamenei when can I edit this? 72011copperfan2 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Same answer - 500 edits. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @72011copperfan2: WP:GOVH contains a decent summary to answer your question in the first three paragraphs, and also a table that illustrates the hierarchy to the extent it exists. Put simply, those with technical and/or social privileges are expected to only use such privileges to serve the needs of the community. Left guide (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I had joined Wikipedia a year ago and started editing passionately, however my edits were regarded as gaming by an administrator which was nothing but a misunderstanding. Since then I lost motivation and left Wikipedia. After months of break and self-reflaction I've been able to recover from this and regain the interest in meaningful editing on Wikipedia. It would be really encouraging if you can grant me Extended Confirmed User status as I met specified criteria. I assure you that I will be more careful with my edits and will positively contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you. Senapatiji (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Senapatiji, you can apply for that permission at WP:PERM. -- asilvering (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, Its nice meeting you. Can you provide with the guidelines to interact and contribute to Wikipedia? Also, I had a very specific question: What are the rules wrt creating new wikipedia pages? If it is about certain organization, what rules apply to it? Does creating a new page go into in some sort of review pipeline or is there any standard procedure? These may be a lot of questions :).. Please bear with me. Thanks --GeometricIsolation (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi GeometricIsolation, welcome to Wikipedia! For your first question, there are simply too many policies and guidelines to list them all here, please see the Welcome message I just left on your talk page as well as the 5 pillars of our community. For the second question, you should be able to find answers at WP:FIRST. Please let me know if you have any other questions. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain the above comment? I don't understand what that means.

Fairyspit sockpuppets have been trying to restore their version of this article for weeks and it is odd that Birdie Boswell would do the exact same thing with no relation to Fairyspit aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unrelated refers to technical data. CUs will not make connections between IP addresses and named accounts. No comment with respect to IP address(es) is used to make that clear. -- asilvering (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you! aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you closed the SPI investigation here but one of the RM opened by the sockmaster at Paleolibertarianism has not been closed. Shouldn't this be closed for being initiated by a sock? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've just closed it, as it didn't have consensus and didn't make much sense anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hm. Or... I haven't closed it, because RMcloser isn't working for some reason. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi {{ping|Asilvering}}

I saw you put up a banner on Chai AI about notability. After looking at all the sources, none of them seem to pass the bar required for a company to be considered notable. More people seem to have added low quality contributions. I wonder if the page should be deleted? And if you can help? ScotsOats (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think none of the sources pass the bar for WP:NCORP, the next step is to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. In your deletion rationale, explain why the sources are low-quality or otherwise unsuitable to demonstrate NCORP (usually this involves comparing them against WP:ORGTRIV, but if they're not reliable sources at all, point that out). You can do all this by hand but it's a pain - if you're not already using WP:TWINKLE, now's the time to install it. Once you've done that, use the XFD button and fill out the form, and Twinkle will do the rest. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I saw you've replaced my previous mentor. I had a question on why you're not using AI to fill all the dead, red links that required re-work with the use of AI?

You see my only contribution is adding the actual developer of hair dye to the page, who was not mentioned since wikipedia started.

In my opinion this could improve the website. --PanickingEditor (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@PanickingEditor, you may be interested to read WP:LLM for the community's general views on AI. If that doesn't clearly answer your question, that's a problem - it really ought to - so please come back and let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I remember having read into it some time ago so I reread. The quote by Michael Osborne is not neutral. Language models run on conditions, so human work is the condition they exist in the first place, making the quote redundant. It's like Markov chains. Naturally theres a multitude of ways to create rhetorical concatenations. Just because a person called markov wrote about them you don't need to make a theory out of that.

Language models can only create concatenations of what their input is. Im going to skip ahead and claim that since it won't have ancient books like the content in the cathedral of the pope in it, eventually you run into errors because of missing paths.

No matter the amount of people you throw at that problem these are output issues.

If you configure an AI to not average some results for example because it is concerned it could spill out dangerous results but specifically throw it at specifical dead links to only provide the core scientific concept to what is being presented in scientific papers and have it add a reference it could atleast solve the issue of adding proper quotes. When you in/validate those it can learn from that. Think about how children do not in class learn the entirety of the periodic table but if they miss out on even the chance of really important scientific information like the only scientifical paper that points out that a scientist has researched malaria and found out hair colorant binds to hair molecules - then everyone misses out in so many ways.

The causes section only references two quotes at [6],[35]. That's also pretty bad and does not help in understanding the output of AI.

The main issue is that nobody has tackled this problem. A notorious person has in the news made the ridiculous claim wikipedia would be a source of misinformation. The only reason that can hold true is because nobody is up to the task of creating a reliable AI including configuration for this task especially since you beyond that improve the models of people who are mostly claims.

But in the end it's still slightly more work if you were fully doing all of that by hand, especially since google has a hard time displaying you lesser known results. You will likely find more research papers like how barnacle glue can be used as wound sealant because that's so funny. PanickingEditor (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Kako da kreiram citat --Hhaka (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Hhaka, I can only help with answering questions about editing English Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, there was recently an article on the Hollywood reporter that an article on wiki was created potentially to slander a living person. The user who created the article made two wiki articles from scratch then disappeared into the ether. Is that user someone that could be checked into? As in seeing if the editor (who made two articles and seemed to have substantial experience in editing Wikipedia) is an alt of a known editor here? You seem to be involved in the sock puppet determining here so I thought you’d be a good person to ask Manboobies (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Manboobies, without any links to who or what there isn't much I can tell you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-Manboobies (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

sent the info by email to avoid ruffling any feathers on here Manboobies (talk)

OK, now I need your assistance, if you can. We've got a TA hopping IP user over on Talk:Second presidency of Donald Trump, complaining but not providing any constructive content about making improvements. The edits have been reverted by multiple users per WP:NOTAFORUM, but they just jump on a new TA, restore the comment, then reply to themselves. If you look at the page history, TAIP will show the obvious evidence, but I'm not sure how much more I can say or how to properly file a SPI report when everything is hidden behind TAIP rules. The base IP is partially blocked, so I'm not sure if we should just fully block that IP, or semi the page itself, or both. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like this one is already handled, though I did add an additional block. Doesn't look like this is a returning customer either. In this kind of situation, there's no need to involve SPI at all, since the disruption is the issue more than the socking, and the disruption is obvious. You can take reports like this to WP:AIV - report a single TA or named account like normal, but make sure you explain that there's some IP/account hopping involved that's clearly visible from the page history, and the responding AIV admin will be able to clean it up. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I was just a little hesitant to file anything at SPI when the user was using only TAs. I don't want to break TAIP, and wasn't sure how much evidence I could provide there without a registered username as a master. Then they registered, and it was very quickly handled, and the blocking admin basically said the same thing. I just need to quit being scared and figure out how to be subtle and vague enough to not break TAIP instead of my usual reports with all the evidence laid out. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning and clarification. I would like to know if it would be civil to delete my comments or Seen as trying to hide something. Bananakingler (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Once you've said them, it's better to leave them. But in general, it's a good rule of thumb to only comment at ANI when you think your comment is going to help the responding admin take action. -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the advice. Bananakingler (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I was banned in last year's arbcom case from transgender healthcare, broadly construed. Others were banned from transgender topics as a whole. I took it as read that the difference meant that I could discuss transgender topics that aren't relevant to healthcare, but am now concerned that I should have asked for permission rather than forgiveness, as it were.

Are comments that refer to Imane Khelif not being transgender within the scope? I would have thought it obvious that they weren't, but evidently others disagree... I'm not looking for license to spend the rest of my life skirting around the edge of the topic area by the way. Thanks for your engagement at ANI. I appreciate the relief from being driven to think I'm crazy. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean frankly I would have thought that I could get significantly closer to the topic without hitting problems - i.e. by referring to people who actually are transgender as such, rather than pointing out people who aren't, aren't. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga, can you provide me with specific diffs? I don't want to say you're in the clear only for us to realize we had different comments in mind. -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

V reasonable. and . Samuelshraga (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The second is fine. The first, I suppose it depends on whether one considers "genetics" to be part of "healthcare". I would not consider simply saying that someone has a particular gene or not to be on the "healthcare" side of that divide. So in my opinion you're in the clear. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not (and don't want to be) engaged in any dispute about whether to discuss the gene on that page, and raised it here just because it was the context of the conduct issue. That said, that gene itself doesn't have anything to do with transgender topics as far as I can see. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I just had this little quiz about what word I should replace and I found out “passed away” isn’t a good word to use in an article. I was wondering, how can I talk about death without sounding blunt and rude? Or should I write it blunt and rude?? --2Theotheo1 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@2Theotheo1, you can just say "died". If that feels blunt and rude to you now, you'll get used to it soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @2Theotheo1: In case you didn't know, there's a guideline which covers this: MOS:EUPHEMISM. Left guide (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

hi asilvering. to ensure i stay strictly within the spirit of the AA sanctions while I work toward EC status, i wanted to ask for guidance (i didn't know where else to look). i am interested in making an article once my EC status is confirmed. this future article is about a battle in which an Armenian commander took part in, and commanded Armenian forces. i am aware this falls under the AA 'broadly construed' scope. is it permissible for me to work on this privately in my personal sandbox (User:Peachy1621/Sandbox) without publishing it to the mainspace, until i have reached EC status and met all requirements? i want to make sure that even draft work in a sandbox isn't seen as a violation. thank you.

on that note, i wanted to know if i could get EC status right now--since combined with my previous accounts, i actually have exactly a thousand combined edits at the time of adding this text here. Peachy has 385 (386 now), Vasily has 447, and Frenchman has 167. are EC requests strictly about having it on another account, or can they be given based off experience? Peachy1621 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Peachy1621, no, you are not allowed to work on these topics in the sandbox prior to reaching ECR. The entire purpose of this restriction is to force editors to make constructive edits to other topics on Wikipedia and learn best practices prior to jumping into highly contentious topics. Letting people work on such topics in sandboxes in isolation would completely defeat the purpose of the restriction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification on the sandbox. regarding the second part of my query: i take it from your response that manual EC grants are not being considered based on aggregate edit counts across accounts in this instance? i just want to ensure i have a clear understanding of the expectations for this account specifically--i'd assume EC is experience-based and not "main has it, so alt can have it too". Peachy1621 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Manual XC grants are considered, yes. But as someone who only recently got unblocked, I'd say asking for that would be a bad idea. If anything, it might tempt someone to reset the 500-edits clock to zero it out as of the date of your unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey whats mentor! How do I know the guidlines to see if a article is fit for publication, MMA wise; what the requirements are --Moneyonlyboy (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Moneyonlyboy, welcome (back) to wikipedia! The requirements are at WP:GNG. The short version is WP:42. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Moneyonlyboy: For this particular context, you might also find WP:MMANOT helpful. Left guide (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Moneyonlyboy (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What do I use my watch list for? --72011copperfan2 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Pages you have watchlisted will show up on your watchlist when someone makes an edit to them. So, use your watchlist to keep track of pages where that would be useful to you. -- asilvering (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for potentially bothering, but I do want to say you can indeed “mute” certain users, meaning you will not receive any notifications from that specific user. It is located at the “Tools” bar whenever you go to any user’s userpage, including talk pages or subpages, it’s between “Email this user” and “View user groups” if you can’t find it. Best regards. :]

(I don’t intend to sound mean, but I feel like I do need to say this.) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

What they were talking about in that discussion was pretty plainly the kind of "mute" common in social media where you don't hear from the other person at all because their comments are hidden from you. We don't have that, and anyone saying "if you don't like what I have to say, mute me" is not acting in the collaborative manner in which all wikipedians are expected to do. -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I thought you said you could not mute people in Wikipedia terms, I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding, that's on me.

Although, I do strongly agree that if a person says "Mute me then" in response for being impolite is not trying to be collaborative at all. :P

Have a great day, for me it's night! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 18:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi asilvering, thanks for your comment. I never requested SPI clerkship because the backlog of cases that don't need clerk assistance is already long enough, and I see that there are currently eight trainees. If you think it would make a difference, I'd be glad to apply to help with clerk duties, but I'm also content with processing behavioral cases in the backlog. — Newslinger talk 20:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do go ahead! It turns out that having a large group of trainees is actually fine and not overwhelming after all. And you've already taught yourself, well, most of the things you need to learn to be an extremely effective clerk anyway. Formally being a clerk means you'll be able to merge cases, tell people off in Clerk Voice (rarely required, very satisfying), and boss around the checkusers (often required, sadly not as satisfying). Also, you get this horrible chartreuse fez, which is delightful. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, asilvering. I've submitted an application. The fez reminds me of lime gelato, which doesn't sound too horrible to me! — Newslinger talk 10:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

In Talk:Standard Algerian Berber Booth Users disagreeing with me did not answer towards my argument. I am not gonna edit it anymore but I still believe I should atleast get a reason why they believe that the native speakers=None is here more relevant than on Modern Standard Arabic or Esperanto. Also I maybe don’t understand the rules here. When I add something disputed the same three user tell me ONUS while disagreeing with me. When they add something disputed, why can’t I tell them ONUS and delete it until we have consensus? Bananakingler (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Also: Skitash was angry that I used „unhelpful“ for an edit summary but he does the same when reverts my edits. Is there something I don’t understand why it is different when he does it? Bananakingler (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

No, not really. But it's always better to take the high road. -- asilvering (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah honestly I just didn’t know that this was a bad thing to do. He used it so frequent on my edits that i thought it is a normal thing to write. I’ll never do it again. Bananakingler (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bananakingler, WP:ONUS states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So if you're making a change or addition, and it's reverted, it's on you to get consensus for that addition. If they want to add something new, it's the same thing. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

, Bananakingler (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

hello how do i edit about a specific rugby player from south africa? --Theyluv.aura (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Theyluv.aura Hi, first search the desired player's name in the search bar to find their article. In most cases, the article will have an "edit" tab at the top of the page for you to click to edit the page yourself. In the rare instances the page is protected, look for the "talk" tab which leads to a discussion page where you can post an edit request for others to review and possibly implement. Left guide (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I see you reverted a change made by JenkinsEarGibraltar to 2024 United States Presidential election in Oklahoma with the comment "WP:BANREVERT," indicating they are banned. However, WP:BANREVERT does state "changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand", and their edit involved fixing a comma splice, which would likely be considered "fixing typos". I was thinking of possibly restoring JenkinsEarGibraltar's edit for this reason. Any thoughts on that? PrimeNumberGuy (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. You helped with a rangeblock following my AN/I report "Disruptive editor with changing IPs; I'm tired": . The editor has escaped at ~2026-13147-44 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Robby.is.on (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

~2026-13330-35 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) also. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

And ~2026-13196-28 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Robby.is.on (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yuck. Ok, let me try again... -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've just blocked each one individually. No obvious ranges to target with these I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:32910a, you mentioned a "cursed" check. What do you mean by that? Cheers, 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 22:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It sucked and I hated it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're okay. Hang in there! 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 20:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Question: has anyone ever proposed creating sections on sockpuppet investigations for prolific sockpuppets to profile their behavior, writing style, targeted pages etc. to help identify their accounts? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Something like this would probably be a good idea. I have a bunch of personal notes on certain socks and I'm sure others have similar information that would probably be better being shared among the community to help with proper identification and prevention. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree! Just looking at a sock today I noticed patterns in their usernames, their tendency to ask seemingly innocuous but time-wasting questions on very specific on talk pages etc. – could be helpful for others to have this knowledge aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Aesurias and @IOHANNVSVERVS: These pages do, to a certain extent, exist for certain long term abusers. However, the creation of such a page has to be balanced against the fact that many trolls do what they do for attention (so lists like that and the hoax list can, inadvertently, encourage people to vandalize). It also, perhaps more importantly, has to be balanced against the fact that some editors don't want to be caught when they create sockpuppets. Creating a list of tells just gives them a list of behaviours to avoid if they don't want to be caught. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. It's very useful to catalog the things that sockpuppets do that define the abuse - where, if they stopped doing that thing, they would simply, well, have stopped being a problem at all. But cataloguing things like linguistic tells, etc - please don't do that unless you're extremely confident that the master in question does not have the competence to attempt to hide them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess so. The sock I was thinking of is too proud of their "notoriety" to change their behaviour. Wouldn't work for all or even most. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hiya! Quick question - Grnrchst realised these are probably socks of User:Gmat605, is it worth tagging them or is it enough that I left a quick note at ANI? Turns out he's been taking over obsolete political parties for a while now... Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Linky here if needed 🙂 Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, that's more than "probably": . Once this is all dug up it's probably a good idea to make a pro-forma SPI report. I'm sure he'll be back, and that'll make it easier to track in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I guess I was being overcautious with my wording! TBH Someone who put this much effort into a false persona probably won't let this rest easily... Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: We stopped the David Woodard operation, we will have no trouble with this wee man. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Ooh bedtime reading material - thanks! Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe you can advise me whether this is worth creating an SPI case.

I recently blocked Xabareawmav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an undisclosed paid editor. I thought that would be the end of it, until his client/victim contacted me to understand why "his" article was deleted, explaining that one "Abbas Harun" had reached out to offer editing services. There is a LinkedIn page for Abbas Harun, apparently with connections to a ring of similar undisclosed paid editors. You can see the conversation on my user page at User talk:Anachronist#Deletion of Raoul Minetti page created by Abbas Harun.

It turns out this undisclosed paid editor harasses academics to convince them to pay him for Wikipedia editing services. I found this archived complaint about him from over 2 years ago, posted to the wrong noticeboard.

There is one username Abbas harun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (lowercase "h") who may or may not be the same person, but that account has been inactive for more than 6 years.

I have no doubt that the user Xabareawmav, who I blocked, has other accounts that he uses for clients and then abandons.

If I reported this on WP:SPI to look for sleepers, it would look like a fishing expedition because I cannot connect Xabareawmav with other accounts.

So, where do you think would be the best place to report this? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The place to send reports like this one is WP:COIVRT. I've had a look at this account and there are no other obvious burners hanging around, and it's in a country where IP addresses tend to jump around, so knowing the address isn't a huge help either. But if you email this to the queue, we'll at least have a record of the work you've already done trying to trace this back, and you'll be able to reply to the ticket if you find anything else. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that's the same email address given in WP:Scam warning. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep. The bulk of the email we receive is "is this a scam?" to which we reply "sure is". Unfortunately there's not a lot we can do about the off-wiki activities, but knowing the names people are working under does help somewhat when it comes to keeping cases together and busting sock accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I sent the email out yesterday, basically the same message I wrote to you at the top of this section. Hopefully the victim will also send an email, as I advised him, because he has more detailed communication with the scammer. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! On my article Draft:Alex Hellyer, there has been a lot of talk about how this biography is made of someone who is not of significance. Can you explain what that means, as I believe any person is a person of significance. --Peanuts4death (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:NBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I've been wanting to say hi (in part because the interface in Wikipedia seems to be designed to make me do so) but I didn't want to just say "hi" and instead ask any more serious or useful question:

I've been a bit uneasy about doing the simplest edits (adding links) because of one of the rejection criteria - "Linking to wrong article" - because the example is "linking 'moon' to 'planet'". So I guess my two questions are -

1. What if it's more extreme of a difference? Like what if the suggested link is to a common phrase like "rock and roll" and the suggested link is "Rock & Roll ('90s magazine)"? Does that fall under the same criteria? I'm imagining it does but I feel like the difference between "moon" and "planet" almost seems orthogonal in comparison. Like if something is the same name and a different concept (rather than a completely different name that's a very similar concept). Is the example kind of not great? It seems very confusing to me. That was much more than one question on its own, but mostly the question I suppose is (to be concise): Am I selecting the right option in cases like the one I suggested?

This brings me to the second (much more useful question):

2. Is there a good resource for the editing interface? I briefly tried to find it but could not. I'm wondering if there's a nice guide that shows the options and has a more well-written lengthy set of "do" and "don't" examples for questions like this.

I don't want to be a bother, and I'd like to know I'm editing correctly. I have a lot of respect for people who maintain Wikipedia and I've felt like I owe it to the community. I'd like to get slowly into more advanced editing as I improve! --TreaddyBear (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TreaddyBear, welcome to wikipedia! Wikilinks are supposed to send readers to articles that will explain the linked topic. So if there's a phrase like "rock and roll" in an article, referring to the genre in general, and you're sending them to a specific magazine, that's no good. The person clicking on that link isn't expecting to get to an article on a 90s magazine. They're expecting to learn more about rock and roll. In general, if you're not sure if a link is appropriate, just don't add it. There's no harm in taking no action.

As for the second question, hard to say. I think what you're after is a general kind of guide? I like WP:PRIMER as a place to start. For the interface specifically, go to Help:Introduction and have a look at the "Visual Editor" instructions. If none of that answers your questions, or you try it and have new questions, feel free to come back and ask! -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it completely free to create a page? --Wikie ditor who is a nerd (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep! -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've got the suspect that a recently blocked user, IvanScrooge98, is evading the block by using temporary accounts, for example the ones you can find in the history of the page Sanremo Music Festival 2026 and others which he's been editing a lot before the block. I'd like to report my suspects to a checkuser, and I've seen that you've already dealt with this user in a sockpuppet investigation a few months ago, so I'm calling on you, who could be willing check if these accounts are sharing the same IP address (range) and/or the same device. Possible tempory accounts created by him are: ~2026-13451-50, ~2026-13695-50, ~2026-13438-76, ~2026-13271-58, ~2026-13269-69, ~2026-13414-53 (but maybe "these" aren't linked to him while "others" are...). ~2026-14474-01 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't remember this case, though it looks like what I did was find that they weren't a sockpuppet, not that they were. If you think these temporary accounts are Ivan, please go to WP:SPI and file a new case. You'll have to provide evidence that links the TAs to Ivan (eg, reinstating the same edits, etc). -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. Could you update filters 1170 and 1157, since MCE89 is now an SPI clerk? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done added! Sohom (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was reading a page on Wikipedia about my father and there was quite a few inconsistencies and incorrect information. How do I find that article and update it? --Haneefah A.W. Rahmani (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Haneefah A.W. Rahmani, welcome to wikipedia! Can you not find the article by searching for it, here or on a search engine like google? I don't know your father's name, so I can't be of any help there. -- asilvering (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @alsilvering, when I messaged you, the search bar was not showing up, but that just turned out to be an internet issue. I edited the paper afterward. Haneefah A.W. Rahmani (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering. You left a note at User talk:EdJohnston alerting me to a mail which you sent but I can't yet find any email from you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I suspected something had gone wrong. I'd emailed as a reply to an earlier email, on March 1, following up on your questions about CU/SI. Possibly it ended up in your spam folder, if you've got very tightly locked-down settings? If that doesn't help you find it, I'll send a copy via wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I do have a mail from you dated March 1 mentioning Discord and proxies; perhaps that's the one. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

'tis. -- asilvering (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello asilvering,

I'm sure that your time is valuable, but I would genuinely appreciate your help in understanding my situation, beyond this message. I think that my edits on the subject have been very careful since the last incident. I was very careful not to revert or change anything by anyone else without a conclusive discussion, slowed things down a whole lot, etc.

For example you may look here and here. I noted an issue with the article greatly relying on a master's thesis from 2010 to make a lot of controversial claims in wikivoice. I used a recent paper from a respected, peer-reviewed journal which gives a more current and bird's-eye view of the subject to start changing things, explaining it in the edit summary and also opening a talk page topic to encourage discussion. They fully reverted me, not incorporating anything, and I'll let you judge the edit summary. Please see the rest of the discussion, which ended with them refusing to answer, and their version of the article preserved. I still didn't revert them, to avoid an escalation.

Then, in this recent case, they just changed my work around with literally no explanation. Is my understanding of WP:CON clearly stating that "all edits should be explained" false? And that not doing so is a violation of policy? My understanding is that when I have an issue of conduct with a person, the appropriate step is to notify them on their talk page. Is that wrong? And to my understanding, I've also shown a clear case of a personal attack being made against me, despite how clearly we went over this issue last time, and no-one seems to have even noted this to dispute it, it was just completely ignored.

I hope that you can see that I'm coming at this in good faith, and that I'm trying and failing to see how this makes sense. I would really appreciate a detailed explanation of the issues I have raised here, if and when you have the time.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do think you're coming at this in good faith. However, there's only so far good faith can take you, and sometimes you need to step away. When you've just been unblocked, you really need to step away. Please reread the thread from here ; this is why you are blocked from editing that page.

Regarding the MA thesis, I've left a reply on that talk page. Regarding when I have an issue of conduct with a person, the appropriate step is to notify them on their talk page, yes, that's correct as written. But that's not what you did. What you did is this: . This is very evidently a content dispute, and discussions about article content should be held on the talk pages of the relevant articles. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I appreciate it. I would really appreciate a little bit more of your attention to this.

First:

The purpose of mentioning the Al Jazeera Effect article wasn't for you or anyone else to get involved in that content issue, but to demonstrate to you that I've been trying my best to avoid any escalation. Considering my current block, I will not get involved there right now, despite my (unsurprising) disagreement with the arguments being made there.

Second and more importantly:

Regarding "when you've just been unblocked, you really need to step away": what I was told when I was unblocked was to "take especial care". That is what I tried to do.

You say that what I wrote on their TP is "very evidently a content dispute". As mentioned earlier, I primarily asked them to explain their edit on the article talk page, and also pre-emptively added my content issue to give them a leg up on starting the discussion in a more constructive way and with less misunderstanding (which has been rife). To just say "please explain this edit" felt weird. I accept that that might have been the better option, but I still think that it was primarily about the conduct, and gave them an obvious opportunity to follow policy and explain their edit.

My second attempt was very very clearly purely about conduct, and was still stonewalled, then followed by a clear personal attack. At that point, I think that it's pretty easy to understand why I felt like my appropriate recourse was a formal complaint.

Thanks again and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم, that second attempt was after they had closed the previous discussion on their talk page. This does not look like someone taking especial care to edit in non-contentious ways. It borders on harassment. I know you didn't mean it this way. But it's a very good example of why we say "focus on content, not contributors". Comments like You say that the "Second edit is hardly contentious". Given our recent disagreements on the article Al Jazeera effect (which currently stand with you having asserted your personal opinion by completely reverting my edit to the article and then avoiding discussion on the talk page), this seems like a particularly indefensible position. are not going to help you resolve a content dispute. They're just going to start a fight. Have patience, use the article talk pages, assume good faith, and stick scrupulously to content, and editing will be much easier. Also, when that is what you're doing, it makes reporting the uncollaborative jerks much more successful. -- asilvering (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again. I'm glad to see you reiterate that you believe that I'm coming at this in good faith, and that I didn't intend anything like harassment. I hope that you will continue engaging with this conversation, because I think that we're getting to further understanding.

So just to get things straight so far:

1. I was correct in identifying the lack of explanation as a violation of WP:CON.
2. I was correct in going to their TP to notify them about it and ask for an explanation.
3. I was incorrect in adding the content issue to try and give them a leg up on starting the discussion.
4. Once they closed that discussion while saying that edit 1 did have a summary and that edit 2 was not contentious, I should not have opened the second discussion there? What should I have done?
5. I should have used softer language when explaining why that edit was contentious (though the edit needs to be explained even if not contentious).

On the subject of "Have patience, use the article talk pages":

I think that the Al Jazeera Effect example shows that I use article talk pages and that I have patience (and that this has been met with enforcing their opinion on the article and ignoring the talk page).

You may also look here for another example. Here too I was fully reverted, with an edit summary that ignored my original edit summary (and frankly didn't make much sense), then my talk page topic was fully ignored. Yet I still waited for comments on the topic and did not keep changing it, and that sentence (which I think you'll agree is a clear misrepresentation of the source cited) still stands there.

On the subject of "assume good faith", "stick scrupulously to content", and escalatory behaviour:

I don't really see where in my behaviour one can point at a significant lack of assuming good faith. I gave them two chances to follow policy by explaining their edits, and, as mentioned, they refused both times and then engaged in a personal attack ("Stop pov pushing - finding sources to advance particular viewpoint"). With these matters not being addressed, I find it quite difficult to take the "borders on harassment" and "just going to start a fight" comments.

The discussion on the Al Jazeera Effect, including after your involvement, further shows where a lack in assuming good faith can and can't be found, possibly even straying into personal attacks: "It’s not a perceived effect as you are framing it to be", "You are relying on a selective source to frame it that way", "But Ghawwas has a strong POV - but isn't neutral", "introduced by Ghawwas, which isn’t neutral", "I’ve had enough of Ghawwas", "Somehow Ghawwas decided that the source they like is somehow more appropriate". All of that also follows this incident.

I don't think that you can find any examples since the last incident which show me making things about the contributor rather than the content, certainly not anywhere near to that extent (except in the ANI complaint, which to my understanding is the appropriate place to do so after notifying and warning, and with evidence in tow). The closest, perhaps, is the "having asserted your personal opinion by completely reverting my edit to the article and then avoiding discussion on the talk page", but I think that this pales in comparison, and that it was mostly to point at the relevant situation in that article (total revert on the article and non-engagement on the TP) as showing that the later change on that issue was contentious.

Thank you again, and again good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, we are back at this again, ha? Stop blaming me and start taking responsibility. You got blocked because of your bad behavior. You’ve driven away most of the other editors support because of your intense bashing against them. everyone who dares to stand up to غوّاص العلم on Al Jazeera-related pages gets bashed by غوّاص العلم - Toddy1

You managed to drive away support from admin BusterD - who was in your corner.

I’m not the only one who accused you of POV pushing. Plenty of people agree. The community voted to revert your entire changes to AJMN. I can prove your POV pushing.

Collaborate with you? We tried - we cannot because of your intense bludgeoning. You are again doing the same on this talk page.

Another editor reverted you after your block - you posted another talk here - no one replied - why? It’s better to step away - than fight with you.

Remember - when I first accidentally cast aspersion against you - I apologized to you twice on your talk page and mine. What did I get in return? You attacked me intensely across Wikipedia.

You think I don’t clash with other editors on Wikipedia? I clashed with plenty - even long-standing editors on Al-Jazeera when I first started editing. Unlike you - I know how to keep it civil and back away when you don’t get what you want. 🐈Cinaroot   14:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cinaroot, if you were intending to demonstrate I know how to keep it civil and back away when you don’t get what you want by commenting on this thread, you have gravely miscalculated. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We have some history. The best course is to avoid interacting with this editor going forward. Thank you. 🐈Cinaroot   17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering there are no uncollaborative jerks here. You do not know what we have been dealing with. As BusterD and others have put it, we are dealing with a difficult and dedicated disruptive Wikipedian. 🐈Cinaroot   15:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an argument with you here (although, unsurprisingly, I take great issue with many elements of these comments). I am trying to understand with the admin who blocked me what exactly were the violations for which I have been blocked. I think that this is an important process.

If you want to aid this process by providing diffs which clearly show me to have violated specific elements of policies or guidelines since my previous unblock, I actually find that totally acceptable, helpful even. But please try and allow the process to move forward. If you're confident that I've been disruptive and violated policies and that you haven't, this process can only end well for you, especially if you provide the aforementioned diffs.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not required to WP:SATISFY you - I already provide some diffs at ANI to support your POV pushing to claim Al-Jazeera is state owned. I would have provided more if an admin had requested them at ANI. Goodbye. Not going to respond to you further here. I only did so because of the blame game and acting like you don't know how you got blocked - when plenty of people explained it to you. 🐈Cinaroot   15:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Asilvering.

I very much understand if you find yourself very busy at this point in time. However, I hope that you intend to get back to this at some point, because I think that I have raised some legitimate concerns here, and that replying to them would be of benefit to myself and to the project.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I got distracted by the subsequent back-and-forth. Will read again and try to give you an answer in a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. As mentioned, that is very much understandable, so no pressure to rush it. This has been a crazy time for me, and I'm sure that being a Wikipedia admin at this time is no picnic either.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) to start from the beginning, "I was correct in identifying the lack of explanation as a violation of WP:CON" is false. WP:EDITCON is clear: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." From what I can see, you interpreted an edit without a summary (not great behaviour, but nothing sanctionable either) as a violation of fundamental WP:PAGs for no reason. Then you escalated your house of cards repeatedly until it inevitable collapsed. Consensus is reached by editors looking to work together; many times, edit summaries are not even necessary, never mind talk page discussions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Did I at any point dispute that "an edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted", or act contrary to it, in letter or in spirit? I'm not sure why you're bringing up this bit.

WP:EDITCON also clearly says (as I have quoted multiple times): "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page." What am I missing there?

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I am well aware that you're unsure why that bit is relevant. If you had realised its relevance, you would not have acted contrary to it in every single comment you have made. Please consider it for once before you reply.

On what you are missing on the second paragraph of WP:EDITCON: edit summaries are considered optimal behaviour, but are not mandatory. That line thus gives you the authority to revert the relevant edits and to have a good position in any discussion on the article talk page. It does not license you to twice open a discussion in the wrong place and, after being twice informed of that basic fact, to seek sanctions at WP:ANI.

To summarise, Cinaroot's lack of edit summaries was poor behaviour. Your subsequent behaviour was contemptuous and retaliatory. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to reflect something honestly to you. Your involvement with me on this has felt hostile, sarcastic, and cryptic from the very beginning. ([1][2]) Perhaps there is a chance that this was never your intention, but I have to imagine that you can see how it looks like that, and that this is not the optimal approach to get anyone to understand anything.

If your take is that the text "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page" is merely a suggestion, then you should have made that case to begin with. You still haven't made the case for it, and I'll be happy to hear you out on it, as it could very much (finally) explain the fundamental mistake on my side. Either way, acting like I'm some sort of contemptuous idiot for understanding "all edits should be explained" as meaning that the onus on explaining an edit is on the editor that made it has not been helpful.

In the same vein, if you think that I'm missing something important about presumed consensus, please make that point in plain language instead being cryptic and sarcastic about it.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture on poor behaviour and the continual IDHT. That serves me nicely for trying to help you. I wondered why BusterD hadn't replied on his talk; looks like he just has more experience dealing with timesinks. Apologies to asilvering for the numerous notifications. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say.

You've never explained why "all edits should be explained" should be understood as a mere suggestion. You act like that sentence on presumed consensus is an obvious explanation of that, and berate me for not getting it, while pretty clearly refusing to even try explaining it.

How easy would it be, instead of quoting IDHT (as if you explained and I refuse to acknowledge it) and talking about my "lecturing", to just finally explain my mistake, if it's as easy to understand as you make it out to be?

asilvering has indicated that while they are busy, they intend to eventually get back to this. I hope that they can still see that I'm in no way "refusing to get the point" or ignoring some point that was made to me, and that wasting people's time is among the last things that I want. Perhaps your style of "trying to help" is very successful in other places, but I found asilvering's engagement here to be infinitely more helpful, and hope it continues when they find the time. غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

But this really, really is a refusal to get the point. "Should be" and "must be" are not synonyms. As AJ29 said, That line thus gives you the authority to revert the relevant edits and to have a good position in any discussion on the article talk page. You're welcome to revert any edits that are unexplained and which you disagree with, but reverting all edits without summaries simply because they don't have summaries is obviously not on. -- asilvering (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” has never seemed so apt. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, apologies again for the delay.

1. I was correct in identifying the lack of explanation as a violation of WP:CON. No. A lack of explanation is far from ideal, but it's not a "violation" of anything. Editors who are persistently uncommunicative tend to receive blocks for it, but that's not what we're talking about here.
2. I was correct in going to their TP to notify them about it and ask for an explanation. No. The place to ask for an explanation of someone's edits on an article is that article's talk page. You can notify someone about a general lack of edit summaries on their talk page, and if they're a new editor who hasn't learned how things work here yet, we have a set of templated warnings you can leave to explain your own reverts of their edits. (WP:TWINKLE makes this easy.) But when you want to discuss a particular edit in detail, the place to start that conversation is the article's talk page. If the editor never shows up to that discussion, you may want to remind them on their talk page that the discussion exists.
3. I was incorrect in adding the content issue to try and give them a leg up on starting the discussion. See previous.
4. Once they closed that discussion while saying that edit 1 did have a summary and that edit 2 was not contentious, I should not have opened the second discussion there? What should I have done? Sighed, rolled your eyes, gone for a walk, and then gotten back to the process of improving the article.
5. I should have used softer language when explaining why that edit was contentious (though the edit needs to be explained even if not contentious). I don't really think this is the issue so much as the foregoing.

asilvering (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. You protected the IHF World Men's Championship page, and after that the user Pelmeer10 reverted an edit that had no source and removed the table containing official sources and medals. Could you please restore that edit? All of this had already been written by other users on talk page. PaulPitchar (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No. Please appeal your block like normal and stop asking people to proxy for you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ich bin kein Mensch wie du, dessen Leben sich im Internet abspielt. Dir bleibt ohnehin nicht mehr viel Zeit im Leben, und du wirst ganz natürlich sterben. Das tut mir leid für dich. Die Seite enthält falsche Informationen und keine Referenzen, und ihr seid auch nicht die einzige Informationsquelle. Außerdem wird sich das alles bald ändern. Leider könnte es sein, dass du vorher stirbst und das gar nicht mehr erlebst ~2026-15190-74 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Alas, I'm sure a life of edit-warring over medals tables on handball articles would have been more fulfilling, but I've had to play with the hand I was dealt. -- asilvering (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. Thanks for page protecting Crime in Minnesota. Page protection ended last night, and now a suspicious newly created account Encyclopedic Poptart (created 4 hours after you had protected the page for sockpuppetry) is now continuing the mass-deletions/edit-war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_in_Minnesota&action=history

Do you think you could ECP the page (and possibly check for sockpuppetry too)? Thank you, Some1 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't take a checkuser to tell you that the person making basically exactly the same edit as the previous TAs is likely to be that same guy. But they've finally figured out how to make it to a talk page, so I'll leave it for now. If they resume edit-warring let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the mass removal/edit-warring has resumed. If you're interested, there's an SPI case about the user here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lunarscarlet. Some1 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

So many files, so many names, it's hard to cope with it alone. Thanks for helping out. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HorseBro the hemionus (the case is closed, so not sure if it would be appropriate to add this info there)

I don't know whether it's relevant or not, but since the blocked user asked about evidence that links them to those accounts and claimed that they didn't create the socks, I thought it might be interesting to note some potential username habits in case they decide to sock again:

• the user is known to edit/create articles about historical battles that involve Dzungaria (i.e. Mongols, Oirats, Kalmyks)
• one of the user names contains references to horses, which are quite important animals to nomadic people like Dzungarians (see Mongolian horse, Kalmyk horse, Equus hemionus)
• one references a dinosaur of which fossils are pretty much only found in Mongolia and China (see Tarbosaurus, also somewhat known as Tyrannosaurus bataar)
• reference to the word Bataar (like in the dinosaur name or Ulaanbataar). Bataar means "hero" — quite fitting for someone who writes articles about battles and was accused of falsely declaring Dzungaria as the victor of those battles.

So, aside from whatever evidence you found through CU, there's also sort of a pattern in the usernames referencing things that are related/relevant to Dzungaria one way or the other. Nakonana (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Also note that they've seemingly randomly pinged two users on their talk page (which are likely two accounts of one person) of which at least one has also edited in the area of battles involving Mongolia, see . Nakonana (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there's a group of them who have been working on articles in this topic area. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

LocalF15 claims to be an American in New Jersey. Their edits and interests strongly overlap with Gvssy on Swedish war history articles, and both are the only editors on Siege of Viborg (1599). ~2026-15276-22 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet because I reverted your edit? Gvssy (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am in fact from the US so… What are you trying to say here? LocalF15 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but if you'd like to report a sockpuppet, please use WP:SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Some hot chocolate, kitten therapy, and a digital detox, and maybe it won't leave a scar. Maybe. What the hell.

Giraffer (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello asilvering, I am a member of WikiProjectSweden. I am trying to help making pages on Swedish people better and have noticed the article on Kajsa Ekis Ekman is highly biased and seems to be written by one person, user Annikacarina, who seems to be on Wiki only for that specific reason seeing her edit history. Despite us others discussing on talk page, this user reverts our edits and does not engage in discussion. Saw that you saw it too. What can be done? Thegivingtreeismyfavorite (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thegivingtreeismyfavorite, I haven't totally resolved this yet, but I don't think you need to worry about that account anymore. Feel free to let me know if another one with the same POV shows up. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Judging by their edit history this user seems like either a disgruntled ex, or a rival (perhaps another journalist?) with one sole purpose on wiki. All her additions to Ekman's page are about trying to paint her in a negative light. We are reaching a consensus on the talk page but I do think it would be best to block this user from editing before we spend time in vain fixing something only for this user to destroy it (in cahoots with RelmC, who also reverts without reaching consensus.) Thegivingtreeismyfavorite (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there have been some odd edits on Kazakh–Dzungar War (1635–1658) possibly relating to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HorseBro the hemionus/Archive. It is odd to me that a page with 33 average views is attracting so much maintenance and care from 2 new editors immediately after the primary editor was banned for sockpuppeting. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you file this at SPI? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

As per above, I've lost my TA cookie as my PC got corrupted during my last boot session. Is there any way for an admin to know that it's me?

As for my current report, Ryuudou/ST is back again being a nuisance at Osiris and filed a frivolous SPI against an opposing editor. . ~2026-15778-12 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we can tell. -- asilvering (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. Are these violations of the extended confirmed topics by Peachy1621?, , . Both articles mention Armenians and Bagramyan battalion, one of them in the lead and infobox as well. Vanezi (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would they be? The edits don't appear to have anything to do with Armenia/Azerbaijan? -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I had meant broadly construed. Would this edit be directly related? Vanezi (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that one certainly is. But since Peachy is now only 4 edits away from XC, I'm not inclined to do anything about that. -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, how was my edit unhelpful? I think one side is coordinating in what is essentially a giant fishing expedition to criminalize a point of view, and apparently other editors think so too. ~2026-12969-72 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to the resolution of the SPI. M.Bitton and Skitash do indeed work closely together - far too closely, in my view - but they're obviously not the same person, and so of no particular interest to SPI. If you want to report them for co-ordination or whatever else, the place for that would be WP:ANI. I don't think you'll be any more successful at that than the last six or so people who tried, though, so fair warning. -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I knew that M. Bitton had repeatedly erased requests to take part in DRN, but I was not counting and had no idea that they had been named in 20 requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I hadn't counted them and was shocked by your comment at ARC just now. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You just did the query and posted the result. Okay? So it appears that neither of us realized how many erased requests there were? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It appears that there is another case of ArbCom flu. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

How can I add a portrait to someone's article? (It currently doesn't have one). --Diogo C. Santos Silva (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Diogo C. Santos Silva, welcome to wikipedia! Yes, you absolutely can. However, you need to ensure that we have permission to use the image. Is it an image you've created yourself? If not, where did you get it? -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Do you know if I could cite a comment from the creator on a YouTube video? (EG: Someone wanted to know where the idea came from, he responds with an answer.) --I am Achston (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@I am Achston, the guideline governing this kind of thing is WP:ABOUTSELF. The short version is, yes, you can say "so-and-so said that he got the idea from blah blah" and link a comment they made. But whether you can do this about youtube specifically, I'm unsure about, because I'm not sure how persistent those links are. Basically, we don't want to cite something that no one can find three years later. This is why we like to have URLs backed up on archive.org, and to provide full citations rather than just bare links. If you can find somewhere other than a youtube comment that says that (a journalist quoting it in an article maybe?) that would be better. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Bananakingler

Hello @Asilvering. I'm aware that you may see some of my editing as inhibiting consensus or stonewalling, as you mentioned in the AE report. I've addressed that in my statement. But to provide context from today alone: On Standard Algerian Berber, the exact same points and questions keep being repeated multiple times despite opposition to their changes from three editors, which feels like WP:REHASH and contrary to consensus-building. They would subsequently accuse others of stonewalling when they disengage and stop responding. On Culture of Morocco, there are repeated attempts to add content pertaining to "Moroccan cultural heritage" to the language section even though the Berber cultural aspect doesn't fit there structurally and is already covered in the lede. These patterns seem more likely to frustrate productive discussion (and potentially newcomers) than my responses do. I'd greatly appreciate your input. Skitash (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I tried to add it to add it to [languages of Morocco]] instead but you deleted it, saying it would be more of a cultural statement. I accepted your position and put it to culture of Morocco. Then you started claiming that it would already be covered by the lede. Which I showed you not to be true. At any point you could have went to the talk page but instead you decided to edit war, claiming I would evade onus, basically assuming bad faith. I did no such thing but your argument for deleting was not valid I reverted it. If you would have instead started talking with me, I am sure we would have found a consensus.

In this comment you also changed your argument. Now you are saying it is not fitting into the text. Why didn’t you say this while reverting what I wrote? This feels like you are making reasons up on the go why something I add should not be here which fullfills criteria of WP:battleground. I hate to revert. You should too.

[]

btw. Uncool, you could even say a bit shady, that you did not move my comment too when you moved the post. Bananakingler (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I reverted you because the sentence you're adding is redundant, doesn't provide new or substantive information, and doesn't belong where you're adding it. You first tried adding it to the lede in Languages of Morocco and then the language section of Culture of Morocco, even though the lede there already covers the broader cultural heritage clearly: "The culture of Morocco is primarily a blend of Arab, Berber and Andalusi cultures, with Mediterranean, Hebraic and African influences." I've also noted how the nearly one-month-long bludgeoning at Standard Algerian Berber is unhelpful so please stop. Skitash (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No that’s not correct. I am sorry you remember it wrong.

first you removed it from languages Morocco for the following reason:

„ This article is about language, not culture“

[]

I accepted that while I disagree and moved it to culture.

then you reverted for the following reason:

„ Why is this being added to the language section? the lede already specifies that Moroccan culture is a blend of various cultures, including Berber.“

[]

I answered that with:

“ The lede is about a mix of cultures. This is about language skitash. Please be civil and take it to the talk page.“

[]

On which you replied with:

“Your sentence clearly pertains to "Moroccan cultural heritage" and not language“

[]

my answer to this was:

“

My contributions says that the language is cultures heritage. The lede says that the culture is a blend of different cultures. It does not say that the culture is a blend of different languages. Huge difference.“

[]

The lede is the following:

“ The culture of Morocco is primarily a blend of Arab, Berber and Andalusi cultures, with Mediterranean, Hebraic and African influences.“

My addition was the following sentence (of course with a scientific source):

„ Berber is a prominent element of the Moroccan cultural heritage.“

I even used Berber even though the author used Amazigh. Bananakingler (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

[]

So your argument was first, that my addition was a cultural not a linguistic topic. I abided and added instead to the cultural page. The you said it would already be covered by the lede, which I showed you was not the case. I get that it could be confusing but the lede is talking the Moroccan culture being a blend of cultures (including Amazigh culture). My addition says that the Amazigh language is an artifact of the Moroccan culture. Those are two different things.

of course we can talk on the talk page about the positioning and how it is written. I therefore added a discussion on the talk page I sincerely invite you (again) to participate in

[] Bananakingler (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The whole discussion on Standard Algerian Berber is unfortunately a really bad look both on you as well as on M.Bitton.

First of all, both of you are Adamant on enforcing WP:ONUS. But apparently when you guys are the ones who should take care of consensus you don’t answer to the talk page (M.Bitton didn’t answer since my creation of the talk page on 27.02) or don’t answer to questions but instead do some counter accusations and create with it a battlefield.[].

instead of just saying why you believe that the addition is justified you just argue that 3 users have that opinion (you m.bitton, a user you have a history of agreeing with each other, and one random user who I never saw before and only gave me a warning.) just to be transparent I really try to assume good faith but since m.bitton has a history of sending mails to other users so they edit in their name ([

User talk:M.Bitton/Archive 5#c-Sean.hoyland-20250309104700-Samuelshraga-20250309092200

„ M.Bitton, I have received credible (and, now, verified) information that you've been emailing users attempting to have them edit on your behalf. I'll assume good faith here and take the position that you haven't yet read WP:EVADE.“…“ @Yamla: I honestly wasn't thinking straight (for reasons that you probably are aware of), but I do accept full responsibility and apologise wholeheartedly.“ )I cannot fullhearted say that I am sure he did not just text him asked him to do him a favor. But it does not matter.

You could have said why you believe your addition is due. But you instead like to create a battlefield. That’s just sad. Bananakingler (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

3 user wanting something is not an argument for an addition. Bananakingler (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Skitash, but as the three of us are currently parties in an arbitration case, I don't think this is the right time. @Bananakingler, you've got to focus on content, not contributors, no matter how frustrated you are. That's true always, but it's especially true now. Leave Skitash and M.Bitton alone. You can complain about them (politely, with evidence) at WP:ARC if you must, but you really shouldn't be doing that anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't find the article I submitted in my sandbox on Iron Academy. --Elizabeth Thomas Hahn (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Elizabeth Thomas Hahn, it appears that the user that deleted your sandbox left a message as to why on your talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi asilvering, I noticed the arbitration case you submitted and it reminded me of my own interaction with one of the named parties to the case, which I believe to be a strongly illustrative example of the conduct issues being raised. However, I'd prefer to limit or avoid involvement in the process. Is there a possibility I can forward the relevant talk page convo, rather than submitting it myself? DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

If you prefer to limit involvement, you can submit some diffs and a brief statement during the evidence phase and then forget about it unless one of the arbs asks you a direct question. I expect to put that dispute in my own evidence filing, but I will be trying to cover a lot of ground and so likely won't analyze any particular dispute very deeply. If you think it's a particularly illustrative example, I do think it's worth making your own statement in the evidence phase. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. If you're already aware of the dispute I'm talking about, then I'm sure you'll be able to explain how it exemplifies the pattern you describe. I'll make my own statement if I feel it's necessary to go into more detail. DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)