User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 57

under united Arab emirates someone written a paragraph which I think its just to promote his spa service please check. Ameliaaria (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @Ameliaaria; I've deleted the spam paragraph from that article. In the future, feel free to make such edits yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this editor has agreed to stay away from the COI subjects going forward, and stick to more general subjects related to art. Any objections to giving them another try? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Seraphimblade: no objections, and no need to even ask, but thanks that you did. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless you are an AI incognito? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Haha, yes, then it would be... outing? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

touché -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I only just saw in the page history that we were both trying to deal with the AI template before it was deleted. I was trying to figure out how to reject the draft outright but your solution got two birds with one stone. I like it. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Those templates can be a drag. :( DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Truthful eye (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AB/CD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear Reviewers,

I am writing to request further clarification regarding the decision not to accept the Draft:AB/CD, specifically concerning the reliability assessment of its sources.

The feedback states that sources after reference 8 are "user-generated... and therefore not considered reliable." However, this evaluation appears inconsistent, and I would appreciate clarification on the following points to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing standards:

1. Official Channels: Several post-reference 8 sources are the band's official social media profiles. These are direct channels of communication from the subject, analogous to an official website. Could you explain why these are treated as less reliable?

2. First-Hand Testimony: The YouTube interview with Björn Påhlsson (source 15) provides a first-hand account from a band member, similar to the pre-reference 7 sources that were accepted. What is the policy-based distinction between a video interview and a written one that affects reliability?

3. Archived Official Sources: Reference 14 is an archived former official website of another band. If the archived official site of AB/CD is reliable, why is an equivalent source for a different subject not acceptable?

4. Discogs Reputation: Discogs is a widely recognized, curated database for discographic information, frequently used across Wikipedia and often including verifiable images. Why was it deemed unreliable here, especially for factual data like release details?

5. Private Conversation Paradox: Reference 8 is described as a private conversation, which is inherently unverifiable by other editors. It is puzzling that this is considered more reliable than publicly accessible, official, or curated sources.

I have carefully selected these sources to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and they align with common practices in many accepted articles. A more consistent application of sourcing guidelines would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and for reconsidering this assessment.

Sincerely, Truthful eye (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, thank you for your review. With all due respect, I'm afraid your suggestion about my use of ChatGPT for forming my article is incorrect and biased, really heartbreaking and can't be evidenced. It's in deloping stage and I'll add a handful data and refs to that by the time but no so later. Thanks again EdLondon0044 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@EdLondon0044: alright, fine, it was only a secondary reason anyway; the main problem is obviously that there is no evidence the subject is notable.

I don't know what's "biased" about saying that the draft looks AI-generated (which, BTW, GPTZero largely agrees with). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear DoubleGrazing! Many innocent people and young women specifically have suffered and been killed at the dirty hands of brutal hostage-taker: IRGC who fathered many criminal org like the Hamas. Now, when a few of freed but also injured ex-hostages or their family members and friends take some tiny steps to act in the sake of humanity, you unjustifiably shut our efforts down! You can see nobody did oppose the establishment of Nezar's 'Hostage Aid Worldwide' foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage_Aid_Worldwide), a similar effort born from a similar place of pain. So why are you now crushing my efforts? This is a clear double standard! Be sure, we will use every means at our disposal to fight this blatant discriminatory misuse of position, what I see as support for hostage takers! EdLondon0044 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow. I'm "crushing your efforts" and applying a "double standard" by saying that your draft provides no evidence of notability, is virtually unreferenced, and looks AI-generated. Alright, then; so be it. Go forth and fight your good fight! (Good grief.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

With nonsense precision, you have sidestepped every one of my concerns; an evasion that is now the cornerstone of my argument. You simply misuse your position of trust, trying t craft something from a sow's ear but surely futile. EdLondon0044 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Thank you DG again for your valuable efforts on this draft. I have carefully reviewed and implemented all of your previous recommendations and I believe the draft now addresses your concerns and is ready for the main article space. May I ask you to please take another look and consider approving it for publication?

Thank you for your time and consideration. Eddies EdLondon0044 (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@EdLondon0044: no thanks, I wouldn't want to "misuse my position" further. Submit your draft, and another reviewer will assess it at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Not of course but oookay, I was very tired and my previous position was not accurate than a weather forecast from a magic 8-ball. So, in the spirit of humility and shame let’s just say you were right! Drinks on me? Or at least an appropriately sheepish virtual fist bump? 👊😬 EdLondon0044 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You recently declined my submission of Draft:William Cullen McBride High School. I have a few questions that would help me better understand how to resolve your concerns, but it's not clear to me if these questions should go on the talk page of my article or this talk page (or else where). Can you enlighten me?

Sickingm (Matt Sicking) 03:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sickingm, the best place to ask questions regarding a draft, or the drafting/review process, is the AfC help desk WP:AFCHD, where you usually get an answer, from one of the many reviewers, in a matter of minutes. You can also ask on the draft talk page, but then you need to ping someone with your question, otherwise it may be that no one sees it and comes to answer. And of course you can approach a specific reviewer on their talk page, like you have done here on mine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that all my work has been deleted. I was wondering why this happened without any chance to edit the errors. It seems like a random deletion without any dialogue. I have also put the same page in my own language without any issues. I have included references from non-biased organisations such as the Film Institute (DFI), IMDb.com and Variety, etc. You mentioned that I do not have references, which I do not understand. After spending a lot of time creating links, I was hoping to correct you, but the deletion occurred without any dialogue. Could I please discuss this decision or get a second opinion? Otherwise, I would prefer that you take pages down without a democratic dialogue. Dko10440 (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Dko10440,

There was nothing random about it, and no dialogue was necessary, that is the nature of speedy deletions. The content in your first draft was copypasted from the website at larsskree.com, which is not allowed. I get that this is your own website, and you may feel that you can use your own content, but alas this is not so straightforward: the website clearly claims copyright, whereas all material contributed to Wikipedia must be provided free of copyright restrictions under a Creative Commons licence. Needless to say, you cannot at the same time claim copyright and make the content available free of copyright.

You can of course get a second opinion if you wish, but copyright violations are non-negotiable, so whoever you ask is likely to give you the same answer. To request a review of this deletion, you may file a case at WP:DRV. Or if you would like to make a more general complaint about my actions (administrative or otherwise) in this matter, you can do so at WP:AN. I must advice you against either move, though, not because I wish to stop you complaining about my actions, that is naturally your right, but rather because you don't have much of a case, and lodging either type of complaint may end up actually working against you per WP:BOOMERANG (primarily because you are clearly here to promote yourself, which is not allowed).

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

I am posting on behalf of User: Thangaraj0220, who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and cannot appeal directly. They believe this is a false positive and request a review of their block.

They affirm they have never used multiple accounts or engaged in sockpuppetry. They work in an office of around 50 employees sharing a single Wi-Fi network, which may explain any IP similarities. Any overlapping editing patterns could be coincidental due to this shared network and common regional focus. The user fully understands Wikipedia’s policies and commits to:

• Strict compliance with sockpuppetry rules
• Neutral, encyclopedic writing
• Using only independent reliable sources
• Respecting all content policies

Could you please review their block or advise on the appeal process? 49.204.136.77 (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I assume you are Thangaraj0220, or one of their many alter egos? They (you) can appeal the block as per the instructions in the block notice on User talk:Thangaraj0220. I will not lift the block. Another administrator may do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, would you reconsider your salting of Draft:Virginia Arnejo and Draft:Rica Arnejo (teacher)? They'll just be recreated at increasingly deranged titles, as you can already see from the disambiguator on the latter. This is one of those "can't be prevented, only arrested" LTAs. It's easier for us (imo) to just watchlist these draft pages and bop the socks as they pop up. -- asilvering (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing, @Asilvering, and next time just feel free to do what you think is best, no need to run by me (although thanks that you did).

I've unprotected Draft:Virginia Arnejo. I don't think Draft:Rica Arnejo (teacher) is protected, or am I not looking at it right? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Huh, you're correct - I must have seen the deletion log entry and just eyeskipped the protection log from the Virginia Arnejo one down into it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing, I have submitted Draft:Matba Ahle Sunnat Wa Jamaat for review. Could you please review it. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@BrownCanary61: I don't do fast-track reviews, it wouldn't be fair to those who have waited for weeks to get their draft reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not asking you to clear the review. I mean, you can take a look at it and let me know if there are any flaws, and I'll try to fix them. BrownCanary61 (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That's the same thing. You're asking me to "look at it", by which I assume you mean not just glance at it, but actually evaluate it. That's just alternative spelling for reviewing. Your draft will be reviewed in due course, once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Dssb where they are blocked as a sockpuppet. The master only has a Commons account, so my filing an SPI feels awkward. The puppet exists here.

My feeling is that where one sock exists others are likely. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I'm not sure, but I don't think they can be blocked on en.wiki for socking on a different project.

I suppose in theory they could also be a sock of Mhsohaib (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhsohaib/Archive), who created an earlier version of Hussain Abdullah, but that farm's activity goes back many years; they only had one recent SPI case, but it was closed without action as inconclusive. And the content of the deleted article bears no resemblance to Draft:Hussain Abdullah, so there's no obvious connection there.

Maybe just keep an eye on it for now? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

There is insufficient cause for global locks I think. That would solve the difficulty , but in a too large a hammer way! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Now they would like me to write the article! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Haha. Maybe you should. I hear there's good money in that racket. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. I left them a response instead. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This message concerns Draft: Chongqing Foreign Language School.

Hi DoubleGrazing,

I was trying to create an English equivalent to the Chinese article 重庆外国语学校 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书. There isn't much to work with as the original article is a stub so I took the time and effort to go thru primary and secondary sources and squeeze out a new article.

It is a major public high school in a city of 11 million people, with the school itself having close to 10K enrollments. But it's not just about numbers, the school itself is historically significant.

The school has also been included in the following templates because the school itself is part of various lists of schools with historical or national significance.

模板:中国具有推荐保送生资格的外国语中学 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书 and

模板:首批外国语学校 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

it is also included in List of foreign-language schools in China - Wikipedia

So please allow me to politely disagree with you on the point that the school is not important/notable enough to warrant its own article.

Cheers, Snowball wiki (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

As you have since resubmitted the draft, I'm assuming I don't need to explain why I declined it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion with User: TheArtandVintage on their talk page over name changing, I can't help thinking that maybe their comment about 'a written threat of violence' might need a little more of a response - not least because they have, on several occasions, seemed to be confused as to what is or what isn't a Wikipedia-related website (see e.g. their comments about contacting a 'Wikisteward' further up the thread - they seem to have been conversing with someone from one of many of the unconnected projects that merely has 'Wiki' in their name).

I'd deal with this myself, were it not that TheArtandVintage has already made some rather wild and confused (and entirely unfounded) allegations about my behaviour: see here. I think we need to ensure that, per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, TheArtandVintage actually has contacted emergencywikimedia.org or cawikimedia.org, rather than something else. As to whether the threats are real, I have no idea, but clearly a joe-job is possible (the Help Desk attracts trolls), and I'd rather not leave any room for doubt that I have no issue with the threats of violence claim being properly investigated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, @AndyTheGrump; thanks for raising that, I'll see what I can do... although I'm a bit hesitant to take any action myself, in case the claimed threat or harassment was aimed at me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I've reported this to WMF Emergency. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

...and now also to Ca, after being told by Emergency this wasn't one for them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

At no point in time was either the one using profanity such as “bullshit”. Or attracting trolls. And the message that I received was deeply disturbing.

I also had to disclose who my relatives were, and how inappropriate these threads actually were. The target of this threat was me, as I was the one that received it directly. TheArtandVintage (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@TheArtandVintage: your message is again so cryptic, I don't know what you're saying.

Who has threatened you? Was it on- or off-wiki? I hope you're not suggesting I've threatened you, because I certainly have not.

To whom have you reported this matter (whatever it is)? You said to 'harassment', but I'm not sure what that means. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody on the Wikipedia Help Page, or anywhere else in project-space, asked you to disclose who your relatives were. At least, not unless you have previously been editing under another account - in which case, since you haven't disclosed the account, nobody is going to make the connection. If you have received threats, and have reported them, good. Note however that repeatedly referring to such threats, while failing to provide evidence that they are actually connected to contributors here (or even explain what they have to do with an article on Ernest Hamlin Baker) may eventually be seen as an attempt to force through inappropriate content concerning something you appear to have a direct financial stake in. "It also affects the fair market value" That isn't going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Note, due to ongoing CoI concerns, I have now taken this to ANI: AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run: U, V, W | Asian women Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Women in Red's Asian women event is part of the global Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 campaign. You are welcome to add your contributions to both event pages. Tip of the Month: Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year. 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women) 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello, DoubleGrazing. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

"Don't be like an AngryBird" is rather a marvellous insult! And I have to say I concur – don't climb into a huge slingshot pointed at some green pigs, it can't be good for your health. --bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You do know I'm actually Terence, the big fat red one, right? True story. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Your secret is safe with me. --bonadea contributions talk 21:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the submission and for your comments regarding notability. I appreciate the clarity and understand the current threshold for standalone articles.

The Row Collection digitisation project is part of a broader institutional effort to enhance public access to philatelic archives, and its reception will be documented in the December 2025 issue of The London Philatelist. If the project garners significant third-party interest or coverage following publication, would it be appropriate to consider resubmitting the article at that point?

Thanks again for your guidance and for helping maintain the standards of Wikipedia. 80.43.65.91 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(Assuming you're Philateliccurator, please remember to log into your account when editing.)

If this project gets significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject (meaning, not British Library newsletters etc.), then that could make the subject notable according to the WP:GNG guideline.

Even then, it would only mean that the subject could have a standalone article, not that it necessarily should. I guess that would depend on considerations such as whether the project has sufficient encyclopaedic value separate from the Row Collection, versus being inherently linked and integral to the collection. This is debatable either way, and not necessarily clear-cut.

But looking at it purely from the AfC review point of view, we are mainly interested in notability, so if a draft presents with sufficient evidence of that, we're likely to accept it, and leave it for the community (especially but not only those editors with a particular interest in the subject matter, such as WP:WikiProject Philately and/or WP:WikiProject British Library particants) to discuss what to do with it.

So a short answer to your question is, yes, it would be entirely appropriate to resubmit the draft, if sources likely to meet the GNG standard were to appear.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an SPI clerks' noticeboard, so I'm asking here; please point me at a better venue, if there is one.

It has been suggested that:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MickMacNee

should all be merged. Can you do that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Responding to a ping. I am able to provide off-wiki evidence in support of this requested merge "to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation" through an appropriate channel, per WP:HA § Exceptions. Alternatively, see m:Special:CentralAuth/MickMacNee. There does appear to be a noticeboard at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks (WT:SPI/C), which this request could be moved to. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It's glaringly obvious without any private evidence that Brian K Horton and ATMN are the same person (e.g. Special:Contributions/Gronk Forever vs Special:Contributions/Gronk's Fortune), and indeed, CU @Zzuuzz has confirmed this. MickMacNee is understandably harder to connect (but see ). An off-wiki source also says Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gruesome Foursome is related, which isn't too far-fetched. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)MickMacNee...that is a name that I have not heard in a long time. A long time. Them being ATMN would explain much. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, the clerks' noticeboard is Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. It's linked on the main SPI page in the navbox on the right. I say that not to chide you for missing it but to ask if you think you'd have found it if we put the link somewhere else. That navbox seems to really hit people in the banner blindness. -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this noticeboard either until a few days ago. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WTH? I take half a day off, and as soon as I'm gone there's a town hall meet on my talk, followed by some sort of... sock shindig? Well, I trust good times were had by all <eye roll>. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

...a fairly usual day around these parts, it seems. Anyway, we can merge AttackTheMoonNow and Brian K Horton for now, but we run into the problem where the WMF banned template would appear on the sock instead of the master (see also MidAtlanticBaby, Gustin Kelly and BSanders46 for similar cases.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought "Triple Glazing" was pretty inspired, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Yuvina2020 has returned as an IP, or rather as three: Draft:Ramraja Shrestha is one of the drafts Y2020 edited, and after that account was blocked, 27.34.65.180 submitted it for review. That same IP created Draft:Harish Kumar Sejekan, which I declined; 2400:1A00:B080:84E2:8487:7A3E:A4F8:82B then resubmitted it and removed previous AfC templates with a characteristic Y2020 edit summary, cf this, oh and NepalFirst said the same thing. 2400:1A00:B080:84E2:D352:43E9:3253:547E is another one, asking about the Ramraja Shrestha draft at the AfC help desk. Worth opening an SPI even though CheckUsers don't check against IPs, or is it obvious enough for a block? Or perhaps not worth blocking since the IP keeps changing? --bonadea contributions talk 19:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Bonadea. I think that's pretty clear-cut. I've blocked some of the IPs.

The user seems pretty determined to keep digging their hole deeper still, so this probably isn't the end of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 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!

Hello, thank you for the note. I've now disclosed my affiliation on my user page using the

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

template. I’m not being paid to edit Wikipedia and will continue contributing in line with the community's guidelines. Please let me know if anything else is needed. Marcedp (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)