User talk:FOARP

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

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Thanks for creating an article on Ollie Wride. If you don't mind, I'll be improving on the article over the course of the coming days using WP:NPOV and some more notable WP:CITE. I'll also work a little on WP:STRUCTURE. On whether he is a synthwave musician, it might be more accurate to say he is an English singer-songwriter best known for his work with synthwave act FM-84. I'll cite accordingly when I get to it. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem, go for it. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're knocking heads right now as we're both trying to edit the article at the same time. If you allow me to update sections and add more references first, then please do suggest or make edits after. I can be done in a day or two. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

All done now for the time being. I have improved on the touring and album release/chart information. I couldn't find any information to suggest that the artist cancelled a proposed 2020 tour during the Covid Pandemic. The reference didn't mention that, so I removed that line, apologies. Please feel free to edit and thanks again for creating the article. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The article said that he was planning to tour "and then came 2020", clearly implying that the COVID pandemic was the reason, but if you disagree, fine. Otherwise OK with your edits. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your diligent efforts to change the title of the article Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have finally culminated in the 23 September 2025 page move to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Saint, though I think this is as at least as much your win as mine! You originally proposed the move to the title that it eventually moved to, even if it took a while for people to come around to your point of view!

With 100% honesty, I think there will be another move or two before this finally settles, but for the next year I don't think this page needs to go anywhere. FOARP (talk) 21:07, 23 September 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)

Is there a reason why you fully protected Talk:Lists of Olympic competitors? I think this might be an accident as the edit summary for the action says "oops". Joseph2302 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to undo accidental protection. I’ll undo. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I presumed it was a mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 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.

Draft:Battle for Dream Island, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Battle for Dream Island during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this essential work. CS46 did real harm to the project. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been chipping away at this for years now, so have others, but I really don't think we're doing anything like what's required to deal with the issue. The problem is the WP:GEOLAND standard, which simply isn't fit-for-purpose (as we are presently discussing on the WP:NGEO talk page). FOARP (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2025 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I see that you supervise and evaluate the sources of an article, such as the one on Copa Airlines destinations. Let me point out that this article by Calito Soul has few credible and reliable sources. 200.46.55.139 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi FOARP, as I'm not going to ping editors in a future Olympic competitors list proposal, I wanted to seek your feedback ahead of time as someone who was involved in the previous list. I hope that, now that a few weeks have passed, we can start working together more on improving the encyclopedia.

I'm considering creating a list by sport segmented like this in draftspace and then posting it at both VPP and WT:OLY per the plan outlined. I'm curious what your opinion would be on this, and if you think it would be a good idea to pair it with the redirect / categories proposal also discussed in that thread? I'm also not quite sure what to do about avoiding duplicate information (or multiple redirect targets) for mutli-sport/multi-year competitors. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The consensus in the VPP discussion was a WP:SNOW consensus against an alphabetical listing of all 160,000 people to have ever competed at the Olympics. I think a straight-forward reading of many of the !votes shows a concensus also against any full listing of all of them in database-like format. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I agree with your first sentence but disagree with the second sentence. Putting that aside, what do you think about the proposals above? -- Habst (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, this is why we are where we are on this. To lay it out for you:

• I see numerous references to the availability of categories as a reason not to have a listing of all Olympians (Masem, Sirfurboy, mdm.bla, Let'srun, Anachronist).
• Length was also cited as a reason (me, isaacl, Mrfoogles, John Pack Lambert, Blueboar, Cdr. Erwin Smith).
• The directory/database-like nature of any such listing was also cited (Sapphaline, SnowRise).
• The problem of maintenance was also cited (Novem Linguae, SunloungerFrog).
• The indiscriminate, useless nature of such a listing was cited by a number of the editors already named, the unreliability and poor notability of any such listing was also discussed (JoelleJay, SMarshall).
  

And most of the editors above cited more than one of the above, as well as scepticism over the usefulness of such a listing. I've just only included the names as examples. CreativeLibrary460 also cast a !vote "per above" that was in agreement with these points. That's a full 17 of the ~23 or so people casting !votes in the VPP discussion.

Even the support/neutral !votes referenced many of these issues e.g., "It's not clear to me what the benefit of a huge list is" - Whatamidoing, "I'm not fully convinced that they're useful to readers" - Toadspike.

So again, I don't think any listing of all 160,000 people to have ever competed at the Olympics is going to be suitable content for EN WP, at least based on the feedback at the WP:VPP discussion. That's not a point that's possible to put aside when you are proposing to do exactly that. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I hear and agree with those problems, which is why I !voted along with them. They don't lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't have any list of Olympians.

Up until this point, I had never heard from you before that you did not support any complete listing of Olympians; this comes as a surprise to me. With great respect, I don't think that was ever reflected in the consensus, and I hope you will agree with me that seeking consensus on a by-sport list, which was never asked in that RfC, would be a good idea on this even if we disagree. --Habst (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

"I hear and agree with those problems, which is why I !voted along with them" - OK, here's where I have point out that the reason why you !voted oppose was not this. It was, to be as fair as possible, an incredibly WP:POINTy idea that the RFC question didn't mean what it said it meant, but instead was an RFC about the theoretical creation of future duplicate articles that you described deleting under CSD A10. That's literally what your !vote said: "It seems like the only logical choice is to oppose this RfC as written because the articles already exist, and any duplicates would have to be deleted under WP:CSD A10."

"Up until this point, I had never heard from you before that you did not support any complete listing of Olympians; this comes as a surprise to me" - Sorry, but it's impossible to have a discussion where you don't appear to have been listening to what I or anyone else has been saying about this. I've said multiple times that I opposed the creation of these lists. I gave the number of items in the list as a reason for my opposition at VPP. The proposed list is going to be just as long, just differently-formatted - why would you think I wouldn't be opposed to it also? I literally told you that "I genuinely don't think that we're ever going to be OK with a 150,000-160,000-item-long-list, regardless of how it's structured".

I honestly don't think there's much more here to productively discuss here. Have a nice day. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

FOARP, that was one of the reasons why I !voted oppose but not the only one. I always understood that you did not support the creation of alphabetic lists for understandable reasons at least since 8 September, but that is different than opposing creation of any complete list (for example by sport or by nation).

There are many editors who opposed creation of alphabetic lists but supported creation of by-sport lists, and yes, I thought you were one of them. I think your opinion is reasonable, and I still think we can work together on improving the encyclopedia on other topics if not this one.

I don't think the comments about "don't appear to have been listing" are productive and hope we can keep the discussion about the substance. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment about me at a recent discussion. I very much appreciated it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

As always, the way to repay trust put in you is to make sure you keep your nose clean and keep on going the way you're going. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @FOARP. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 18 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Foarp,

Something I've noticed in the RFC on the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard it that folks are all over the board on what "officially recognized populated place" actually means and what type of sourcing is sufficient. Here's an idea I came up with for workshopping this to try and find some sort of consensus:

I wanted to see what your thoughts would be on adding this to the current RfC discussion or using it as a future RfC or informal talk page topic. The wording could definitely be tweaked, It kind of presupposes the use of "populated place" but I wasn't sure what other term to use. –dlthewave ☎ 21:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I honestly just despair at the way this discussion has gone. Particularly the people who think there's nothing wrong with this standard, just that GNG should apply, or the problem is "only" that people are treating the standard as a complete pass on SIGCOV... FOARP (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel the same way, I thought these questions might shed some light on what people think the SNG means vs how it works in practice but we're probably not going to get a productive discussion at this point. It's the same "The guideline already says XYZ, we just have to enforce it" that we saw at NSPORTS. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS2022 did eventually get over the line. I don't think these are bad questions, my main doubt is just whether anyone's even listening at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Having thought about this a bit more, I think the way ahead is to let the discussion get archived as the no-consensus-outcome it clearly is (assuming there is no unexpected avalanche of !votes either way) and then point out the obvious: this is an important notability guide. A discussion of this kind for any other major notability guide on EN WP would be WP:SNOW-closed as fit for purpose, but not WP:GEOLAND. It's therefore time to find a standard that can achieve consensus.

Rather than just one potential option, let's put them all down and see whether any of them are runners. This includes:

• A "Cities, towns, and villages are typically presumed notable"-style guide.
• An NSPORT2022-style one-instance-of-sigcov requirement.
• A country-by-country list.

Any others? FOARP (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, FOARP. 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)

At the AN discussion, I suggested that the restored BFDI draft be put under extended confirmed protection so that it couldn't be submitted by autoconfirmed users and put at risk of being rejected or even re-deleted to save reviewers from having any more of their time wasted. Now that BFDI is an article, that level of protection is no longer necessary. For now, it ought to be unprotected so anyone can edit it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. FOARP (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I need you to create a page for my soon to be released Just for Laughs film 108.88.98.49 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

No. FOARP (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle for Dream Island is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Authenyo (talk) 01:37, 2 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!

Appears to have been wiped away by natural disaster some decades past, if the aerials are any indication; it's totally gone without a trace now. Of course I cannot find any sourcing for its demise without fishing in old newspapers. This is why I hate having articles on these tiny places. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, FOARP. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 15:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a note... the sooner the RfC regarding route tables can begin the happier I'll be... there's just too much back and forth regarding them, it's definitely tiring. The main reason I started that RSN was because of this discussion on a user talk page, which looked like it might have devolved into edit warring, so wanted to get them discussing instead. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is ultimately:

• Airlines have some very intense fans.
• They believe Wikipedia should host their fan-content.
• Many Wikipedians disagree with this, because they think Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a flight-catalogue/guide.

I think we need a multi-pronged RFC. I don't think it's enough to just ask people whether lists of airline routes contravene WP:NOT. I think we also need to ask whether they require WP:SIRS sourcing. Let's let the outstanding RFCs get archived first (otherwise there'll be a move to close any RFC as there's "too many" of them) and move from there. FOARP (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm… what would you suggest as the RfC then? Bear in mind I'm very much on your page here - my whole modus operandi on Wikipedia is about sourcing, and the routes tables make me cringe something awful when I see a badly sourced one (read: most of them) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@FOARP, the RfC I opened as had no new responses for over 24 hours. I considered requesting for a close, though with only 10 days that have passed, it may not be taken well by some editors. I agree with what has been said above, the "DESTNOT" RfC and the current RfC are not a lid on the issue. I support any planned future RfC, which can ask the appropriate questions in the right way. 11WB (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You could ask for a close but it will most likely be “no consensus”. Better just to let it get archived. FOARP (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that if this RfC can claim to have achieved anything, it is that "DESTNOT" cannot be used alone as a rationale for keeping these list articles. I plan to contact the creator of that redirect at some point, to ask them to consider changing the redirect location to the current RfC. It would be incorrect for editors to continue to cite the January RfC, instead of this one, when broad scope only has a slim majority. 11WB (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

So, very roughly, I think at least three questions could be posed here:

• Are lists of airline services required to cite secondary, independent, reliable sources?
• Is it original research to say that an airline service that was previously announced but is now no longer listed, with no statement saying it has been terminated, has been "terminated"?
• Are exhaustive lists of all services offered by an airline, present and future, "Listings ... [of] products and services" in the sense used in WP:NOT?

FOARP (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's the last two bullet points I was planning on asking anyway, although deliberately avoiding reference to NOT for the sake of not muddying waters - effectively simply asking whether lists should be included in airport articles, or whether they should be split out or summarised instead. My thinking for the sourcing questions was to hold them separately after the initial RfC - because if the result of the first one is to remove the tables or summarise them, we may not need the second RfC on sourcing anyway… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think holding a multi-question RFC is the way forward here because it's highly likely that people are going to start saying "What, another RFC? We've had too many of them" and shutting down subsequent RFCs, as has happened in the past. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm yeah that's fair… I'll dream something up and put it in the VPP discussion, just so I don't spring something different out of the blue Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

As someone who commented in the relevant RFC and has an interest in improving coverage of obscure little villages (when they turn out to actually be villages), is there some big list of which regions of the world have been checked so far and which remain to be checked with regards to potentially dubious "populated place" entries? Is there a list of users who have been doing significant work in this area or centralised discussion hub? I will add that the Welsh "village" substub creations of Wici Rhuthun 1 need to be gone over if you all aren't already aware of it. Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as know, there is not. There are several US states which have been done at least once: Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, N and S Dakota. We never finished California; there are other states which were partly done. As far as whole nations, maybe Iran? I know we never finished Somalia. At the moment I'm the only who appears to be working systematically (on Indiana); I can think of four other people who have done some systematic work. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Didn't ping ya because you are already in the discussion, but then I thought what if they do not have notifications enabled. Anyway I mentioned you here. Polygnotus (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:VPP § RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Since the previous discussion, because of my poor judgement at grouping together unrelated sources, was a mess and was archived with no outcome, I've started a fresh, targeted, discussion about FR24. Pinging you because you were in the old discussion :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again, things are getting a little silly and I’d appreciate a second pair of eyes…

Any chance you could take a look at the edit history of Springfield–Branson National Airport and the talk page of the other editor where the edits are being discussed? Ta! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Hi FOARP. Thank you for your work on Mr. Stress. Another editor, 11WB, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I fixed a cite error, article is fine otherwise.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11WB}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @11WB! FOARP (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't see that this was one of your articles @FOARP! I wouldn't have left feedback otherwise, as I have a personal rule not to advise administrators. Have you considered applying for or self-assigning the Autopatrolled permission to your account yet? 11WB (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally I like having other eyes on my articles because they're far from perfect. If you think it's a drag on reviewers I can add it though. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The new pages feed doesn't show any other articles waiting to be reviewed, so that's completely up to you! You pass the 25 article minimum criteria and you have 2 GAs. Recent articles look fine! If I were able to assign the permission, I would have no issue with applying it! AP is pretty safe anyway, as it gives the ability to unreview, so that a reviewer can then take a look! 11WB (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

TBH I thought I already had autopatrolled. But yeah, sure, if it's going to be an issue. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Mr. Stress when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK, you based your evidence in ARBPIA 5 totally on User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA RM statistics. (Did you note any diffs in your evidence that weren't given in BM's table? Did you check that AndreJustAndre never voted?) I have outlined some of the problems in using BM's material here: User_talk:Guerillero#As_requested, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I collected it myself, not using BM's statistics - I hadn't even seen his submissions when I entered my evidence and still have not actually read them in detail so I have no idea whether I did or did not include any diffs that he did not: but since you are the one raising this unfounded accusation, maybe you should actually check? Or indeed should have checked before making these accusations?

I had noticed the "Massacre"/"Not Massacre" issue long before, whilst closing RMs.

Asilvering hasn't allowed me to respond to you accusations in the discussion, so perhaps, in fairness, you should just strike your original accusation? FOARP (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | March 2026 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:MAR26]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:npa accusing a user of saying something they have not said is not acceptable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please explain. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You have accused me of refusing to allow any change in an article (including punctuation, grammer and spelling) in an article that has had 7 (unchallenged) changes this month (alone). Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is also not something I have said, shall we swap templates and call it quits? FOARP (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

[] and [] and [] all replied to me, so if you were not talking about my edits (the edits you were objecting to) who were you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I said you weren't a partisan Steve, it's pretty obvious I wasn't referring to you.

I feel this response is part and parcel of the rigid mind-set we discussed previously. However, if you would genuinely like me to state that you do permit edits for "punctuation, grammer, and spelling" I am happy to say that. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Then why reply to me with it, if it's not about me or anything I said it has no relevance to our discussion. We were not discusing ridged mind sets, were discussing my rejection of your edits. Can you really not see how that looks? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Well then let me allay any suspicion or doubt - you do indeed permit edits for "punctuation, grammer, and spelling". I'm sorry if anyone was ever placed under the misimpression that anyone ever thought otherwise. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

and having a ridged mind set? Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think only you can answer whether you think that is a fair or unfair appreciation of your editing. If you would really like me to list the discussions this is based on I can do that, but I don't want to engage in what might be an overly-personal discussion for you unless you want me to. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

NPA is clear, and saying "AHH but I did not say YOU" is not a get out, either make an accusation or stop insinuating, my last word, it is now a warning, Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Steve, to say that RUSUKR is an area with dug-in partisans is hardly a controversial statement - it's the entire reason why it is a CTOP - nor is it "insinuating" anything to say so.

I recommend opening an ANI discussion because I cannot for the life of me work out what it is you are actually asking for at this point. I gave you the statement you appeared to be asking for - that you did actually allow edits for punctuation grammer and spelling - but that was not enough. Perhaps you will get whatever it is there? FOARP (talk) 15:36, 25 February 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!

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksandr Lapin was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FOARP. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FOARP. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 17:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)