User talk:Asilvering/Archive 25

@Asilvering Hope you're well. I’ve been working with a lot of AfD the past couple of days, most of which have been a case of delete. I see my NPP request was rejected, can I get the AfC perm back as it was revoked 2 months before , so that I can get some more experience in it before applying in the future if I want to? Jesus isGreat7 07:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there! In case you haven't received a response about this, I wanted to jump in. I would recommend requesting the AfC perm at WP:PERM, especially as asilvering may be a bit slower with responding to administrative requests due to a recent injury. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade Hi once again, I am not sure whether posting an AFC perm would be acceptable because many of my requests in the past have been rejected, including the most recent ones ... Unfortunately, maybe because I lack in some part which is needed to hold those rights, so I am just looking for good guidance 🙂 Jesus isGreat7 18:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7, we don't hand out AFCP without a request on that perms page (not WP:PERM, but WT:AFC/P). But you're going to run into the same problem as before - any admin is going to look at the numerous repeated past requests, think "what the heck is going on here?!" and decline. I promise you that three months isn't that long and you can wait it out. My advice is that you keep gaining experience, taking part in the encyclopedia, writing articles, and so on, and apply for zero new permissions between now and 91 days from now. Then, apply for one, and one only (I recommend AFC). -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sir/Madam, you can see he did a manual revert. I already explained that don't use [[ ]]. See here JohnDavies9612 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking

(going after me out of desperation, history of warnings/blocks/extremley strange comments) 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment ban suggested 93.143.173.65 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JohnDavies9612, looks like the IP was blocked before I got a chance to look into this. IP, we don't usually link country names like that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, hope everything's alright. I came across some issues regarding the availability of languages in the top-right corner of pages, which shows how many languages an article exists in. On many pages, for instance, the one I recently created Sebastião Vieira, it’s available in Japanese wiki セバスティアン・ヴィエイラ, but only Japanese is shown as available. However, deeper down, it also exists in Dutch wiki Sebastião Veira, but it’s not showing. Is there any way to add available languages manually? Jesus isGreat7 15:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7: (talk page watcher) It must be added into the Wikidata entry, which appears to have coincidentally been done by another user about a half hour after you posted this; see the Wikidata page history. Left guide (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide Saw that, thankyou so much! Jesus isGreat7 17:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You declined an unblock request made by them under a different IP; looks like they hijacked an older request. They've been trolling other talk pages too. Lynch44 23:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's irritating. Thanks for the tip. Blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most successful topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. 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) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Highly interested. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@MelisaaArcadia, glad to hear it - you can sign up at WP:WOMRED! It's a really welcoming and friendly wikiproject, I recommend it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

done, thx for the guidance. Its my first wikiproejct, actually. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering: I’ve added a few points to this SPI and shortened parts of my comment to make the evidence more straightforward to review. Could you take a look? I’d appreciate your opinion. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not familiar with this case, can you give me a brief description of what Urabura gets up to? I don't mean evidence with diffs, just a general description. eg from my quick skim through the case it looks like they're interested in Polish history and have a habit of edit warring. You mention a conversation that comes off to you as "inauthentic", does this sockmaster have any previous history of this kind of thing? -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Please excuse my late response. I have summarized my observations regarding the discussion with the previous sockpuppet account here. PJK 1993 shows similar patterns to Urabura and their earlier sock accounts: a focus on Polish history, repeated disruptive editing (apparently from a Polish nationalist POV), personal attacks, and edit warring. Particularly concerning is the deletion and alteration of citations in order to remove scholarly findings that contradict their own views (in combination with original research), see e.g. . Even if we leave the sockpuppetry issue aside (in my view, this evidence alone already seems sufficiently clear), the behaviour mentioned above makes it difficult for other editors to work on the affected articles in a constructive way and is in conflict with the core content policies.

At this stage, I think it should be sufficient to refer, in addition to the SPI, to the recent entries on the user’s talk page (the same recurring problems: disruptive editing, personal attacks, edit warring). Given the similarity to earlier cases where admins had to step in and also considering the impact that editing from a Polish-nationalist POV had on Wikipedia in the past, I would appreciate if you could review the situation. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I noticed that you have already taken action. Thank you for that. Just to clarify, since my previous reply may not have made this sufficiently clear: I would appreciate if you could have a look at the SPI because as others have also pointed out there is strong evidence that this is a case of sockpuppetry and the SPI has been open since a very long time. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as unfortunately have many SPIs. I've got limited bandwidth at the moment, but I'll see what I can do when I can do it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@JeanClaudeN1, there are many SPIs in the backlog, and I have no previous experience with this case. Please don't ping me about it. I or someone else will get to it when we can. -- asilvering (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. I only pinged you because you explicitly mentioned it on your user page. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: there is new evidence Could you please have a look?

@Asilvering: even more evidence

I would like to be able to access the text and footnotes for the article I created (Erica Coulibaly, the international rugby player). You were the one that decided to delete it. Thank you. Gegenpresser (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can do, but you don't have email enabled, so I've nowhere to send it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you do so now? Gegenpresser (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope its ok to reach out. You were the last editor to comment on my Talk page but did not have the option to reply there. I resubmitted a revised version of my first article around 8 weeks ago and was wondering if there is anything I can do to help speed up the review process? I added a recent article to the citations ealier today, which Im hoping will help. I would appreciate any advise you might have. Thank you. Sinead RAU (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Sinead RAU, at this point there's nothing you can do to speed it up, and at a quick glance, it looks pretty good - that is, you haven't done anything that would make it harder for reviewers to review. There are two significant things counting against you, as far as speed goes: you're a paid editor, and the article is on a company. These are some of the harder and more time-consuming drafts to review. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back to me. I suspected it could be for the reasons you mentioned. Good to know there is not anything glaring that is preventing it from being reviewed. Sinead RAU (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) 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) 18:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive
On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed. Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Asilvering! Thanks again for taking me on as a mentee. I'm looking forward to getting started. To wit: I think there can be major improvements made to Subtypes of HIV, and I wanted to solicit your advice. Specifically, there's a lot of missing literature about HIV-2. While it is a lesser-known subtype of HIV, it has its own origin, discover, and treatment history. I made a few changes to the page, but I'm now wondering if a larger overhaul is warranted.

I'm envisioning adding information about the history and origins of this subtype (like HIV#History). Or even making HIV-2 a separate article entirely. Since I'm a newer editor, I thought I'd ask your advice before making such large changes. What do you think?

PS: I read a decent amount of medical anthropology, and I thought it would be useful to engage with the following scholarly sources for this article, among others:

Gilbert, H. (2013). Re-visioning Local Biologies: HIV-2 and the Pattern of Differential Valuation in Biomedical Research. Medical Anthropology, 32(4), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2013.773328

Gilbert , H. 2010 Spinning blood into gold: Science, sex work and HIV-2 in Senegal. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University.

--EspressoMachine77 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EspressoMachine77, I can't be much help on medical articles specifically, but the folks at WP:MED will be able to. Or maybe I can tag in Femke? Make sure you read WP:MEDRS before you get very far. As far as those specific sources go, you'll probably want to avoid the PhD dissertation, both because it will now be somewhat dated (that scholar has probably published more up-to-date stuff since, like that article), and because PhD dissertations aren't usually counted as WP:RS on Wikipedia.

As far as adding more information on HIV-2, by all means go ahead! My advice is to add new information separately from any edits that change something else about the article (eg formatting), so that if other editors want to object to any changes, it's easier for them to do so. As for spinning it out into its own separate article, you'll be a better judge of that once you've added the new information. If it's starting to get too HIV-2 heavy, yes, it's normal to break that out into its own article and leave a summary of it behind in the "parent" article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello EspressoMachine77! Thanks for working on this article! The WP:MED group of editors are super helpful, so do come join us in the Wikiproject. In terms of disserations, my reading of our policy on it WP:THESIS indicates that they are usually reliable, but that it depends on the context. For instance, a US PhD is more work than a UK PhD and might work better as a source. For non-medical claims, the sources you've identified seem okay, but for medical claims, Wikipedia typically wants to rely on review papers and medical guidelines that came out in the last 5 years when there is active research in the field.

I recently identified HIV/AIDS as one of our key articles in need of updating, with the median source age of 2010, so I imagine the subarticles are also in need of TLC. About splitting the article, keep in mind that that increases the maintenance burden, as you will duplicate information across articles. Medical articles have quite a high maintenance burden to start with given the preference for up-to-date medical sourcing. If possible, I would aim to avoid splitting it off. Once you feel confident about editing articles about HIV/AIDS, the main article might be another cool project to work on! It's been listed as a WP:Good article, which means we can get some more folks helping you if we list it for a review. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both, @Asilvering and @Femke for the clarifications. I've read up on the guidelines that you suggested, and this all makes a lot of sense. Agreed - both the subtypes article and the main article are in need of updated. I'll try working on them and researching a bit to see how things go. Will come back to you if I have any questions! Once I get my feet wet, I'll join the WP:MED group for more long-term contributions. EspressoMachine77 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

They wrote this message but deleted it after pinging you. They admitted that they have an account named Dunyar77 (talk · contribs). The user has other confirmed accounts here, you can better check it out here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokak99/Archive Kajmer05 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Trust the process please, I know what I'm doing. :) -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Though you must have larger worries, I commend you for your thoughtful comment on the sockpuppet investigation of my work IPs of late. After first taking Wikipedia seriously in 2006 when CNN reported it grew to a million articles with many better than World Book items, I edited here since the Great Recession in spurts. However, admins inevitably warn of blocking me or do so, which prompts me to do something else for up to years. I think the main cause of repeated ire is the sheer quantity of contributions I can make in a time interval rather than their quality.

Part of my grasp of what disruptive editing means here is any activity including yet not limited to needless edit warring, gratuitous vandalism, unexplained content removal, defying policies, lack of civility, ignorant personal attacks, and any other damaging, frivolous, or unbecoming conduct. A large volume of edits, if they are properly sourced and constructive for readers, should not be mistaken as any of those concerns.

Since the abuse accusations (part of which I do not get due to jargon) claim to not see my history, I found a few edits from long-gone IPs and lost-password names. As an eco-consultant and a STEM professor, work took younger me to Southwest Alaska which led me to find the region had no article, so I just made it and then did more Alaska stuff. After months, some user kept posting I changed too much and was not Alaskan and was disruptive etc., so I let the account sleep forever. After other flurries of contributing, in COVID lockdown I made the most edits of any stretch, including notable mostly-kept additions to Template:Branches of chemistry seen across this range, which caused my colleagues to buy me lunch when they found out later. Maybe with pride, my then-new links on Template:Fantasy fiction were so many as seen here, some crawling bot came along that permanently semi-protected it same as any other template with at least 250 hypertexts. Those templates have been reorganized since, yet most of the actual branching is still there, so they cannot be grossly off-topic after user scrutiny for this long.

My point before getting to investigation details is that I am really just a slow normie sporadic contributor. Besides vandal reverts, I believe my only works here have been adding proven verified categories to articles and requesting new ones to be made, improving extant template boxes and asking for more too, and (long ago) making baby starter articles that those who are smarter and more invested than me can expand.

Back in January 2025, I noticed perusing vampire literature due to above-average fandom by me and my family that the original Dracula novel by Bram Stoker had a shocking degree of absent categories, given how acclaimed and popular it is. As an important article and a featured one at that, it was no shock that it is semi-protected, yet its categories were so few next to the original Frankenstein novel by Mary Shelley which is pending protected thus still editable by anons by request. Even that had neither scientist nor monster categories till I asked, in my estimation an abysmal oversight greatly exceeded by nigh-endless landscape of literary works of sci-fi, fantasy, and/or horror genres that were and are weakly or wrongly tagged. I then resolved that in my free time, largely during running computational chemistry software related to modeling sea-air interactions, I would do something about it. This turned into a whole lot of somethings. There must be thousands of speculative fiction novels and shorter stories on English Wikipedia before even getting to works in other languages, in other formats, or that just lack articles.

I knew the wise could undo mistakes, and I might be faulted for mass editing if I put a category in many places instead of refining one article at a time. What I never knew (till today) from this info page with a rare graph based on this table was a maximum of 7587 users did a minimum of a hundred edits per month that peaked in 2007. No wonder some are appalled by my numerous revisions. I am too now by comparison.

Even with only adding sourced missing categories, a rate of maybe a thousand per week was far more striking than I would have foreseen. When Golikom (who was later site banned for socking and harrassing) griped about my citable edits to the page for the original Carrie novel by Stephen King which is seen here, it somehow got HJ Mitchell to ban my work IP for a week. That was shared throughout this building or at least part of it, but I also use it as a static IP around campus, at home, and elsewhere for work resources access. Having waited out trouble, I returned only to get fouled again by Soetermans for modest changes to the piece on the film Cast Away starring Tom Hanks that led to HJ Mitchell banning again but this time for a month. When I tried to appeal that on the grounds that I meant no offense and wished to make a case for why it was mistaken, the reviewer Yamla not only declined, but also repeatedly slighted my sincerity, my literacy, and my faculties with malice. If I am out of line and need to step away for a while or until doomsday, then okay, but stifle insults to my person when shown the door.

When I saw talk texts and blocks were gone, I returned. I even got kudos from xRozuRozu that is seen here for literary edits. Lamentably, my dumb butt missed that the university or provider had rotated the IPs without loss. This is likely the proximate cause of Harryhenry1, who was critical before others and whose talk page brims with posts on vandalism and warring and disputes and contention and hounding, filing a probe.

If my editing is normal, then please share the articles or I can link some samples for my cause, but no biggie. I have work, a troubled marriage, and a child newly starting at college. Also, you have a life. I am just mildly infuriated that all this time, being bold seems to never apply to category definition as others do multi-kilobyte edits to main content. I just try to aid navigation, period. Maybe I broke policy and now must fear sock claims for days or decades, so maybe I should let go and leave. Even so, if this is fixable, I wish to know how. Thanks for thinking on this. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, none of these have active blocks, so I think you're clear. A question before I get into anything else - is ColonelBatGuano you? -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad you replied fast, though I was slow to notice. Last night, I figured what ColonelBatGuano is, yet it hurts my plea. My geek brother-in-law coworker did a "fun" libelous fake of me, sought categories like mine, and let me find them. I made many before, yet failed to question this gift horse herd. The log shows here I likely edited on a shared workstation that he did not log out, and he halted once I noted the probe.

To paraphrase Doctor Manhattan (if I dare), I am very disappointed. I had lunch / strife with him today about his crummy house renovation contractor referral, his failure to pay his share of a vacation to Mayaguana this past New Year, and the stupidity that I am posting about here.

He and I are Earth Sciences associate faculty at a suburban Northeastern U.S. public college whose wives are sisters and in healthcare. He is professional, yet an odd nerd (more than me). Anon IP geolocation makes it easy to identify us, but I prefer privacy unless off-site if asked.

If it matters, I found some old use cases by me here and here and here and here and here yet more exist that are lost. There is a nontrivial chance of incidental anon parallel edits in that time, but a null chance it did lately without that guy. I did no edits since this befell me, so if they have been otherwise constructive and "normal" as you said, I wish to resume in some way if alright. Thanks for your patience. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I think you should do: you should create an account, and do your very best to only ever edit while logged in to that account. On that account's user page, I would suggest writing something like "longtime IP editor, recently encouraged to make an account" or something so that people understand that you're not a) a new editor with unusual skills for a newbie or b) someone evading a block. If you have an account, it's easier for people to contact you and easier for your edits to be linked across different locations, which you will find very useful - your category edits will almost certainly be reverted less often if they're made from an account with WP:XC, which I expect you will get quickly. Also, with an account, you can use some convenient userscripts like WP:HOTCAT.

Some of your category edits have been reverted because they don't adhere to WP:CATDEF, so please have a read of this guideline before making any more. Wikipedia used to be more anything-goes about categories, but it's stricter now. If you're specifically interested in TV shows and other pop culture categorization by minutiae, TV Tropes is all over that sort of thing and I'd recommend getting into that when you have that particular urge.

I love I had lunch / strife with him today and plan to immediately assimilate this into my active vocabulary. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess of the long-running referenced investigation, but also for not replying in a timely manner. I have been busy with mundane adulting, the start of the school year, and disturbing current events. To make it up to you as an admin here who thus likes both irksome discontent and dark humor, I suggest this article talk page to see folks have a food fight over what is assassination, what is homicide, what is fascism, what is mourning, what is motive, what is suspect, what is political, and what is the meaning of is. If you wish to see every type of passive-aggressive Wikipedia dispute resolution technique, it might make a good funread for you.

As though you have nothing else to do, I actually broke down your last response to prepare better comments than I compose for most memos around here. Generally speaking, I have no problem creating a new account, using only that, and not telling anyone who can do an impersonation of me along with the other nonsense they are doing. However, though I do wish to contribute as I was earlier this year, there must be tools on here that are admin-only or unknown to me that go beyond page history where the same person keeps spamming or like-minded people are playing games like this creep as explained earlier. Assuming I even get to edit again without being called out for editing going back seconds or decades, I have several questions about your recommendations.

As there is an ongoing investigation that you commented on as seen here with plausibly positive comments about me, if I create much less edit with a new account, why would that not be seen as new or continued sockpuppet or otherwise suspicious activity?

If I made an account with a user page with text that amounts to "Hey, I fooled on here as an anon for a long time which is why I am slightly good at it, but an admin said to log in so it is fine now", what stops a new investigation, mass deletions, or total banning?

When (like Thanos) I inevitably do the same or similar activity by improving see also sections, making templates bigger, and most of all adding categories to places I wrote on before, how would that not be seen as edit warring, pointed disruption, or not letting go?

Though I am familiar with the extended protection level of the larger page protection tier system, since I am stumped by the WP:XC concept past the very low numerical thresholds despite reading the entire user groups page, how may it prevent or at least hinder admins, logins, or casuals from reverting or reporting my edits? (As an aside, the WP:CXT feature as described seems awesome!)

Speaking of filthy casuals, as almost all my posts are single category or template links of less than 100 bytes each (though at times in quick succession), what would be the point of using a gadget such as HotCat when I find even visual editing to be major overkill?

Due to all major complaints I get here relating to verification, overcategorization, and citation overkill, is the issue in part that a given reader may object less to a single edit instead of several items in a row or many, causing hostile reflex even if all content is suitable?

Though mention of TV Tropes as an open moving image archive is familiar and intriguing to me, in light of past and hopefully future work on Wikipedia on stuff other than fiction, why should I go to an inferior wiki that is ad-run, full of memes, and quite limited?

It is tons to ask, yet another issue relates to the investigation. For his privacy and mine, I will not feud with "ColonelBatGuano" here. Even so, if you go the Climate change article and use the what links feature at least six iterations out in all directions as with Kevin Bacon, the most evasive warring puppeting vandal is him. There must be other actions on here by him as on other platforms. He is among many I know in the United States who changed or revealed themselves for the worse in recent years, and not merely due to the unlinked person and/or outbreak you may think. I cannot figure your location from your user page and you did not ask me, yet though not discussable at length, the issues seeping from my corners of the real and online worlds are making this site worse too.

I protest too much, yet many years ago, this giant geek wondered what the heroic scholars at then-new Wikipedia were like, yet learned they were even more titanic nerds. I am a STEM professional of some success who figured out late in life that my passion for speculative fiction was okay despite my childhood. Both are excursionary since science and sci-fi are symbiotic across centuries. Add to that my old data entry clerk skills, and the inclination to edit here is almost innate. If it is at all possible for you to help resolve this jam with a favorable outcome so I can start chipping in better as you suggest, I would thank you for it. Thanks yet again. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, unfortunately I am already quite familiar with the chaos on Charlie Kirk.

Regarding the various queries: technically speaking, nothing stops another investigation - any editor can have a sockpuppet investigation about them opened at any time. (Well, admins can't, but that's only because charges of admin sockpuppetry skip SPI and head straight to WP:ARBCOM.) But if an editor tries to open an SPI saying "this guy used to edit as an IP and now has made an acccount!", the SPI clerk is is going to say "good for them!" and close the case without action. Saying on your userpage that you were an IP editor for a while before making this account will help ward off that kind of thing.

Having an account won't hinder anyone from reporting your edits, but I can promise that it will happen less often; XC users get more benefit of the doubt than IP editors or editors with fewer edits. That's not any kind of policy, it's just social dynamics - most editors who have reached XC aren't vandals or otherwise out to destroy things (they get caught before they make it up there), and you've "put in the time", as it were, so people are less likely to assume ill of you. There are also some technical anti-abuse systems that stop firing for established users.

As for gadgets, Hotcat might not be your thing if you're very efficient with the source editor, but you'll really like WP:AWB/WP:JWB, I expect.

As for the various behaviour questions: making a lot of very tiny edits does tend to drive people crazy, but it's good to break your edits up by "genre" so that if someone wants to object to one of them they don't need to revert your entire complicated edit. So one edit to change categories, one to mess with the infobox, one to add a new paragraph, etc. But really that's up to individual editors and how they like to work. Verification, overcategorization, citekill - these are all issues that you shouldn't be having, that is to say, once someone points out an issue you're having with them, you should do your best to stop repeating that problem. (Though, it's possible that other editor is wrong. You're always welcome to ask for a second opinion at WP:TEA or so on.) The reason I suggested TVTropes is that they want a much higher degree of overcategorization than we do, so if doing that is what brings you joy, it's a much better place for you to edit than here, where you'll constantly fall afoul of WP:CATDEF.

Also, another nice thing about having your own userpage as a registered editor is that you can tell other editors about yourself there, or use it as a repository of handy links, or (mostly) whatever else you like. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for missing you on the talk page for this IP. I have not used it for months here besides with you, checking out the investigation status, or monitoring my frenemy. I will message you there about this message, making a messageception.

About said frenemy, his online hellraising including vandalism here in the last 10 months and especially 2 weeks is way out of hand. Please look up any contentious article on science and politics put together, and the biggest harasser is likely him.

I do not like to fight with strangers on the Internet as much as most editors, yet I think I should rat out another naughty person. As a limited-access anon who wanted sanity checks, I used category request forms both long ago and recently to get stuff made while also having a second person confirm that my proposed category was okay. (Fun fact: telling Trolly McBiteMe of it is what got me in trouble.) Going back years, an admin whose user page is here has self-dealt terrible empty hack categories by posting garbage proposals, and then instantly approving them. From their user page, it is obvious they are infinitely more accomplished and acclaimed than I would ever contemplate, yet one can see here and here and here the trash they keep doing without correction. There are many others with most surviving, and it is truly bizarre that someone so experienced would not simply compose better proposals themselves, so maybe see what their deal is as well.

I also say sorry again for inflicting current events on you. Whatever else Charlie Kirk was, he was totally against censorship. I pointed out that editor scrum even before his funeral, as when I last composed to you I was a hundred percent convinced that the netizens will be taken to task after the comedians yet before elected officials, and am now at two hundred percent.

Getting back to being a good Wikipedian, I definitely can and probably will create an account that I shall use responsibly (and not tell anyone in real life about), but only if you review the userpage I make, speak with the relevant admins about my intentions, and answer a few more questions. You are neither my parent nor my flunky, but I would like more clarification.

Though I am glad the investigation has so far not banished me thanks to you, if I create an account now much less edit with it, why would it not be seen by someone as more sockpuppeting sometime between immediately and the far future?

Since I may be credible to you as a normal editor with excess enthusiasm and a jerk near me, will you lobby this PhilKnight or that Harryhenry1 though the former knows nothing of me before this and the latter had been giving me grief for months?

If I make a userpage as preferred, will you see if it defines my status and intent to deter investigation as much as possible?

With a new account while upgrading from dirty anon trifler to glorious extended contributor, maybe by 20 edits per day in the 31 days of October 2025 to get the 30 day and 500 edit levels with 620 edits, what halts anyone zapping me again midway?

If my edits are regularly verifiable, may I resume editing as before at some point when I am established or some such term?

If I get vexed again whatever the merit, why may there not be initial good faith rather than going right to arbitration request?

As an academic with a sociodynamics deficiency, I like to think I still grasp how dedicated effort can gain credibility among others in any endeavor, yet why would an anon not garner some level of integrity if their changes were neutral and citable?

Having looked at AutoWikiBrowser, it seems potent, but do editors get less perceived merit if they just type in article fields?

If folks go mad from many small edits in a row more than one large edit, then if an article has too few categories, is it better to add them all with a single "publish changes" action although someone might wish to easily revert some yet not others?

For those worried about too many categories, a valid concern when trivial or just bad, why is adding all supported by the main text deemed disruptive editing for some items when all prominent feature film articles have giant category text walls?

Should I pose queries to the teahouse as a desired place of guidance, or do they also do informal resolution request stuff?

Here are a pair of matters I do not have questions about: I do not wish to go to TV Tropes that only has meming funposters sifting through every word and still in fiction but nothing else, and I do want to help with navigation whether on categories, templates, or anything else. During the pandemic, all pages got a sticky left-side navbar (or the right, for some languages), and I found it magnificent and still do. Further improvements can be made, which is the whole freaking point of this site.

Lastly, if I can be assuaged that making an account with a viable userpage will be vetted by you yet also not screw up the lingering investigation, I will create an account right just now to get back to adventure without being on a total ramage. At the very least, a sourced one. Please tell me if I am good to go with you and maybe the others, see my impending thanks here if you did not already, and thanks on top of thanks for recurrently reading up on me and talking me down. Be well. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP, apologies again for letting this drop. Here we go:

SafariScribe: not an admin! But please don't describe other editors as "hacks" and their proposals as "garbage". This whole enterprise works because we require editors, even editors who might mightily disagree with one another or even hate each other, to, at least outwardly, be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. It sounds like you're accusing Scribe of making bad proposals while logged out, then accepting them on their main account? That doesn't make any sense to me, since Scribe can just make new categories they want themselves.

Sockpuppeting: it's not sockpuppetry to create a new account and start editing, unless you fall under one of the conditions of WP:BADSOCK. To my knowledge, you do not. I am given to understand that you are not indefinitely blocked on any previous accounts, and so long as you stick to that one account (instead of sometimes logging out to edit, and sometimes logging in to edit), you won't violate any policies by creating it. Other editors might accuse you of being a sockpuppet (that's life I'm afraid), but they won't get anywhere with the accusations if you're not actually doing any sockpuppetry. The suggestions I gave you earlier about what to put on your userpage are intended to ward that kind of thing off. And yes, I can tell you if what you've written ought to be helpful for that.

Getting zapped: well, nothing stops any admin from blocking you, technically speaking. But so long as you don't do something that is worth blocking you for, you won't be blocked. If you are blocked, it can be sorted out and you can return to editing, as soon as the unblocking admin believes that you understand what you did wrong and that you won't do it again. If you get into trouble like that and need help understanding what's going on, I'm happy to be pinged to your talk page. If your edits are verifiable and you're not violating some other policy and driving people crazy, it's very unlikely you'll be blocked. And if you're driving other editors crazy, they'll let you know. We rarely block with no warning.

Credibility: some anons do get quite a lot! But because IPs can be dynamic, it's hard for anyone to see the full history of your edits and talk page comments when you're operating logged out. So it's harder to see what all you've been doing, and for how long. Also, some people are just prejudiced against IP editors. They're not supposed to be, but they are. So it goes.

Yes, I think it's better to add all the categories you want in one go. Yes, you may get reverted, but you can deal with that then. Better than adding them one at a time. As far as the giant category textwalls, well: WP:OSE. Sometimes things are crap because no one's gotten around to fixing them yet. Sometimes people care very passionately about what one article says. The whole place is an eternal work in progress.

The Teahouse is a good place to ask questions, yes. They're also a reasonable place to ask for a second opinion, if you're in a dispute and you need help understanding why. But it's not really a place for dispute resolution - that's the talk page of the article in question, or alternatively, the steps at WP:DR.

Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, great latest reply, despite my inquiries born of nervousness and mild issues heeding text-only direction.

About SafariScribe, I could have said dumb and bizarre. Their category creations are very strange, as they use that page to make categories no articles and/or no parents, and then self-approve in seconds. Some get filled later, yet others not, and why not do it yourself well on the page or as a direct creation. So odd even assuming good faith.

Since I have no desire for sockpuppetry much less witting or oblivious strawman junk, I accept your writings that my activity here going forward is okay. Since accounts have always been preferred for regular editors, I shall do so. I also guess that doing a score of article edits per day for October 2025 will earn me extended status lest it deemed system gaming to edit more articles faster in future, which you know I can do (though always with citations).

I further hope the aging investigation will be favorably closed or become irrelevant to my forward logged actions. As I have followed on the general page, it is you who has not only stopped other admins from sending me to the Negative Zone by your hold, but that the vast number of holds there are yours so every confused newcomer and troublemaking clown gets a chance from you to explain. The block evasion pursuits alone must be quite irritating.

My twin original sins that brought me to you were letting WhatsHisFace see me edit at work and not being logged. Admins can be biased against anons, yet logged users build up reps and get into beefs on here I wished to avoid.

On categories, ducking reverts is aided when not adding many to one article or one to many articles. Even so, there are endless pages that are undercategorized and categories that are underutilized. Maybe I will take modest risk.

I thought the best way to dodge disputes was like real life: do something small, almost always let go, and try again later. As one well-educated person to another, that seems the most competent move besides not editing at all.

With mostly good answers in hand with thanks, you may not see this IP again. However, you will me. Real soon. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey now, after much pondering with you since month before last and hesitancy with Wikipedia since decade before last, I did the thing (finally).

Please check out said thing for how appropriate, aesthetic, and helpful it is versus how it could be. Most of all, the big userbox lists should be collapsed by default, so I hope to get good site code for that. I also freely admit to the colossal reuse of material from a squad of semi-random userpages than I recall. Some even came from accounts you paused as per the naughty list page, yet some applied to me, so I hope it is fine.

As I aim to do a finite number of small edits over time as we discussed, I look forward to pinging your talk page as well as hearing from you. ThoughtlessMcSheep (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Good luck and happy editing! I'll close the SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, so I guess you kept me out of the fire. I will say more on what is my new usertalk page, yet in keeping with most notices on here, please consider looking at the several users I grumbled about, even the admins. Thanks so much for taking my dumb situation seriously. ThoughtlessMcSheep (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I wanted to personally thank you for your thoughtful "Keep" !vote in the recent Articles for Deletion discussion for Richard Ashworth.

I was very concerned the page would be deleted (having spent a lot of time researching it both physically and digitally), and I believe your nuanced perspective on sourcing for a historical figure was very instrumental in achieving the "no consensus" result that allowed the page to thrive. Your argument that the article could be improved rather than removed was really encouraging for my efforts.

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article and share your insight. It made a real difference.

All the best The Watcher5292 (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I wish you luck with it. Do take Fram's concerns in mind to the extent possible - I think they're well-founded, even if ultimately I disagree with him on whether the article ought to be deleted. Perhaps unfortunately for the stylists among us, Wikipedia desires "staid", or perhaps even "boring", above all else. And, very belatedly, welcome to Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the CheckUser team following private and public consultation:

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

The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser appointment, October 2025

Congrats on your promotion, A! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

ditto -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

congrats asilvering!!!!!! dbeef [talk] 15:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all, and especially @Dbeef for the clerk training. :) -- asilvering (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Great to see this! S0091 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, I could use your advice here. Given this frankly ridiculous accusation, should I entertain it with a response, or best I ignore it? I don't want to come off as in agreement (I sure have plenty to say) but if nothing will come of it, then I'd rather let it die down. Thanks Hogshine (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

My advice in basically all similar circumstances is to just ignore it. If anything does happen - for example, if an SPI goes forward, which I don't think it will - I would still advise you to ignore it, unless someone from SPI asks you a direct question about it, in which case you should answer. A CU isn't going to check your account if they don't think it's a reasonable concern, and if they do check your account, they're unlikely to do anything sudden about it unless the technical evidence is really persuasive. If you keep getting brought up in different SPIs by the same person or group of people in a short amount of time and a clerk/CU doesn't notice you're being harassed like this, it's fair to point that out, so we can tell the reporters they need to leave you alone.

In general though, the issue in this topic area mostly seems to be suspected meatpuppetry. That is, that people are co-ordinating off-wiki to implement particular edits or influence consensus. It's fine to talk about what you're editing off-wiki, and even to do some co-ordination (that's what edit-a-thons are, after all), but given how tense ACAS is right now about sock/meatpuppetry, I would strongly advise that you avoid any off-wiki discussions about specific articles, discussions, or editors. Try to keep conversations on-wiki wherever possible, even when they're between off-wiki friends. For one, this is just good practice. For another, it makes you less vulnerable to accusations of meatpuppetry. -- asilvering (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the future though, there's no off-wiki coordination on my part; on all the articles I've contributed to - including the previously-contested ones - I've edited it entirely by myself. Many thanks for the advice, I'll leave it alone for now. Hogshine (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, https://www.amsterdamuas.com/ Can I add this citation link after "vocation university." --KunalRKale (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, though it would be more helpful if you could link specifically to a part of that website that is about the Institute itself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank You KunalRKale (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Three days later what appears to me to be a very similar article is newly created in Mainspace. Your thoughts would be useful here. I am unsure how to approach this and doubt I have the necessary 'status'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

your G6 was correct, looks like. I've never seen IAbot do that before. How weird! -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I felt G6 to be the incorrect route because it prepares for a move, but I don't necessarily think G4 applies either. Each is 'not quite right' 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

However your admin experience trumps my knowledge. Good call. I had no idea IABot could even do that! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

G6 is also the "something effed up and we don't really need to have an AfD about it" CSD. So, "IAbot finally triggered after I moved the page to draftspace and so it barfed up a whole new article that we don't need" seems a fair enough reason to use it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Funnily enough, IA bot seems to have created a couple articles recently: Agricultural Palace (history at Draft:Agricultural Palace and Indian National Young Academy of Sciences (history at Draft:Indian National Young Academy of Sciences... does this mean I get to template IAbot with {{uw-c&pmove}}? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I'll clean those up. And I guess yes, you should go chide the poor robot. -- asilvering (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0, I didn't participate in either of those dicussions. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

XTools said you did. But thanks anyway. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles%20for%20deletion/Caesar%20DePa%C3%A7o?editorlimit=200 Czarking0 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering - Re: this SPI, where you did a CU on 1 Oct, there is suspicion of a succession of socks from Fajkfnjsak + mulitple IPs (blocked) -> AintItFunLiving + multiple IPs (now stale) -> TranquilityBanquet (now stale) -> DataFocused over the period of early 2025-present.

It appears to me that the user may recognize there is SPI suspicion, then drop the name, and create a new name, as can be discerned when editing activity stopped by one user, then a new user was created - within a day or two - with a successive new username and the same editing topics and behavior. AintItFunLiving acknowledged the SPI review with Special:Diff/1296622776.

The rapid, high-volume editing over short periods on different articles by each username above also raises suspicion that multiple users may be cooperating under one username.

As the Fajkfnjsak case was "closed" (but then CU-checked by you after closing) with suspicious similar/same usernames and editing behavior, can this possible succession be checked once more, please?

I added details to the Fajkfnjsak (2) case with Special:Diff/1314957081, but neither you nor Izno responded. Please advise on how to obtain further inspection, if you feel it is justified.

Thanks - Zefr (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

(I wasn't a checkuser on 1 October and couldn't have CU'd anything!) Neither Izno nor I responded because we had no idea you made that edit. I've reverted it now - please open a new case, and add your new information there. Go to WP:SPI, type Fajkfnjsak in the box, hit "submit", and then follow the instructions in the template. That will generate a new report and we'll have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for what was a misinterpretation of the list at SPI where you are the "last clerk/CU edit" shown for Fajkfnjsak.

I will submit a new case for "Fajkfnjsak (2)" as the original puppeteer in the suspected succession. I tried that a few days ago, and was directed to the existing (closed) Fajkfnjsak case, which is why I completed the information there. I did notify you and Izno in Special:Diff/1314957081, but recognize you likely see too many of these daily. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know non-admins could help out with that. Consider me interested and open to your assessment of my suitability. My biggest doubt is the third criterion, followed by the first. I think I'm maybe qualified on the second, but of course I would think so. Xan747 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt I'd end up telling you that you suck at it and need to stop, I can say that much. Spend a good while lurking before leaping and I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. Feel free to ask if you've got any questions. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mind deleting Deji Olatunji for a reviewer move; and then when I move it semi-protect or extended protect the article? The Draft I plan to approve. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Valorrr, this draft contains references to deprecated sources and should not be accepted in this state. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I will decline it now. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 12:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

How to add a photo --Salman kauthekar (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Salman kauthekar, welcome to wikipedia! H:IUI has a short tutorial on this topic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You said she is AI Vtuber, No, She is actually person, Don't insult her. Tiamichaelnuksu1994 (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see the post where she uses a real-life camera and her Hand. Tiamichaelnuksu1994 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not reply to you because I was not online when you contacted me. I have no position on Watchanaroj whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (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.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.