User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 21

Can you investigate whether this Ip address is a sock linked to User:Kanakasa08 and User:Hatimm Tai, who are confirmed sockpuppets? 2407:1100:1001:2002:4923:733:34E9:9061 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

No. File an SPI and provide evidence. We are not permitted to check just because someone asked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked you because you confirmed and blocked both users. It will be helpful to file SPI if you create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kanakasa08.

Evidence is the summary of this revision and this revision as they look same. And User:Hatimm Tai and Ip address were editing List of Tamil films of 2025. 2407:1100:1001:2002:4923:733:34E9:9061 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion over at Template talk:Uw-gaming1 regarding potential improvements made to the Uw-gaming template series. Please feel free to leave any suggestions there. Thanks! Gommeh 🎮 17:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

First it appears that they have a brilliant mind, and clearly a WP:SME. Their self-doxing on their userpage links to a person who has deep experience in the field overall, which is something we really could use around here more often.

However, with that often comes the associated problem of NOTHERE/CIR issues. While I haven't engaged with the editor or indirectly on any of the pages their editing, their contrib history still is very concerning -- with collateral damage spreading -- possibly fueled by their understanding on their talk page that they were vindicated as landing on the correct side of the ANI.

In my ideal world they would undergo some sense of mentorship to navigate P&G, instead of their BIT / IDHT approach. At the end of the day, we really do want SME's here instead of blocking users for being disruptive. What are your thoughts, or is a formal ANI the only way forward? TiggerJay (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I have become involved on the talk page for one of these articles, and I have concerns beyond policy, xkcd 2501 comes to mind. Their focus on niche open-source hardware is a problem for notability and due weight unfortunately. The bootmaker may be able to write some fantastic articles on making boots, but have trouble keeping a balanced perspective when writing about shoes as a whole.

They have stopped responding on the talk page but continue imposing their preferred view on surrounding articles, I think WP:FAIT applies here. They also continue to cast aspersions against those who disagree with them. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been watching since their (now oversighted) post at ANI a few days ago, and I agree it's out of hand. I will be making a report, but give me some time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you for your close of the RFC close challenge at WP:AN. Your handling of it was thoughtful, balanced, and exactly what was needed. Bravo! Nemov (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Hello, I come to ask you a favor to block some IPs that are used by a sockpuppet who has massively requested, both in the WikiProject Anime and manga forums and in several manga and anime articles on their respective discussion pages unilaterally to be able to create split anime sections between a main article and an animated television series of that name, and they have placed it very badly the templates of split to pages of the same that they should have removed them if the case had been concluded which in actually still there.

These are some IPs from different ranges that you can block for example:

• 76.71.63.0/24 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.93.39.0/24 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• 142.126.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

Please note: The IPs used are a sample that belong to the user Silence of Lambs who still evade this block. 190.167.12.171 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP, Ivanvector has not edited in a few days so I suggest filing an WP:SPI but do not request CU as they cannot publicly tie IPs to accounts. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

FYI - I just file an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Silence of Lambs. S0091 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ivanvector! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:00, 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.

Hey Ivanvector, Your first edit anniversary on this wikimedia project was 8 days ago. Thank you for your valuable contributions and wishing you many more years of amazing contributions to the Wikimedia community :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 22:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector sorry for committing what was regarded as "forumshopping". Was under the impression that the ongoing issues made it fair given no adjudication at the SPI had been carried out due to the backlog there. Thank you however for looking into the issue, it's appreciated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ivanvector, your name sounded familiar from this category because I am facing one of your range blocks, but thats the topic for another day.

I am here because I couldn't find the proper place to report an IP range issue. The following range appears to have a long history of persistent vandalism. Each time, its a different IP address but the same type of edits targeting similar pages, which makes it difficult to track and report individually:

• 39.34.134.190
• 39.34.132.217
• 39.34.130.156
• 39.34.131.62

You can find more of it in the revision histories of Chief of the Army Staff (Pakistan) and Director-General of Inter-Services Intelligence. Each instance comes from a slightly different IP within the same range and involves the same kind of disruptive edits. Can you take an action on this or point me to the proper place to report it. Thanks -𝘼𝓷𝓳𝓪𝓷𝓐 𝙇𝓪𝓻𝙠𝓐 ^{𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨} 12:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know I had done that at RSN. Thank you for correcting it. - Walter Ego 14:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: no worries, just thought I should ping you for awareness. The edit conflict detection on busy pages seems to have been broken for a while now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Ivanvector. 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)

I looked at the history, and I see that the personal attacks were worse than I expected. I have closed the DRN case. Thank you for the notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Ivanvector, you asked me to ping you in case his inappropriate behaviour continues.

Well, even while banned it continues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tito_Jugoslavchenko#c-Tito_Jugoslavchenko-20251102230600-NoTimeForUs-20251102202500 NoTimeForUs (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@NoTimeForUs: thanks for the heads-up. I was watching them do it in real time, and they are now blocked indefinitely and cannot edit their talk page. I doubt they will be bothering you any more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:23, 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!

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Gang de la Brise de Mer−This information about over 3-4 thousand members of the BdM gang is nonsense, this number was about 100 before the breakup, Wikipedia is really trash — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcinTorun1971 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@MarcinTorun1971: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but thank you for finally making an effort to communicate. If you have spotted an error and want to suggest a correction, please see WP:EDITREQUEST for a guide on suggesting an edit on an article's talk page. I am busy today but if I check back later and see that you have posted a talk page question or suggestion, I will try to assist. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector -- thank you for your help with User:Saratherohan's linkspam! From what I can tell, User:Mohanunnu has picked up exactly where they left off. Any chance you'd be willing to step in there as well, please? If that's inappropriate to ask of you directly, I'm also totally willing to take this to whatever noticeboard is most appropriate. Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Would you consider lifting the corresponding block on SirGallantThe4th as well? Or would you prefer for them to make an appeal? -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: definitely not without an appeal. I don't think it would take much to convince me to unblock them, but they need to make the effort. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I won’t be editing the remigration article anymore, because you (plural) have established firm, uncompromising, and non-neutral ownership there. The ability to do so is Wikipedia's greatest flaw, greatest temptation, and greatest danger. I don't know if its founders would agree, but at least one of them likely would. When the slightest effort at neutrality is opposed by a block of biased editors, and so many editors have given up trying, it's futile to resist. Consider this a vote of no confidence in you (and Wikipedia). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Your block reason contains a redlink to WP:LLMCHAT. Is there a target intended there, perhaps WP:LLMCOMM? If so, that feels like a valid redirect and should probably be created. ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 19:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Matthewrb: yeah, I screwed that up. I did mean to link to LLMCOMM, but there's no preview for block summaries and they can't be edited, I figured the point was obvious anyway. I wasn't sure if LLMCHAT was valid as a shortcut, but I can't think of any other uses either, so go ahead if you'd like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yeah, the block system feels stuck in 2012 in that way. You'd think there would at least be a preview.

I've gone ahead and created the shortcut BOLDly. Thank you for your time! ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 19:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ivan,

Thankyou for taking the bull by the horns so to speak. I just had one query, did you block them as a regular adminstrative action or are they CBAN'ed? TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I still personally hold to the view that blocks are merely a technical function used to enforce sanctions more commonly known as bans, and the banning policy is the only policy which grants the community authority to issue sanctions, therefore all community sanctions are de jure bans. Language in the policy supports this (under WP:CBAN: "Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community.") That language developed from this discussion, but I'll warn you in advance that I'm at the absolute height of my pedantry in that discussion; one editor called my comments "hyperlegalistic" and they weren't wrong at all.

But community practice doesn't always follow the letter of policy, and that's by design. I would say that unless the participants in that discussion had explicitly proposed a site ban, it's likely that if an administrator decided to unblock on their own without having a new community discussion, probably nobody would complain.

That's a lot of words for me to say this should be treated like a regular admin action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. Words are good. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ivan,

Following the discussion at User Talk:D.18th the other day regarding an IBan they had recieved in January the block was removed by yourself with the reasoning they were no longer under an IBan per your March removal. From my reading of the initial close, however, the IBan was a community authorised editing restriction. Would such a ban not require community consensus to remove per WP:UNBAN? I'm not sure the removal of the ban was valid without a community discussion - if there was one can you let me know? Thanks! CoconutOctopus talk 19:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: nothing you said here is incorrect, and no there was no discussion about modifying the interaction ban.

Back in January D.18th and Aidillia were reported at ANI; you've seen that discussion. Subsequently, D.18th made good effort to abide by the ban while Aidilla pretty much just completely ignored it. They were reported again about a week later and blocked, and then were found to have about a dozen sockpuppets and were blocked indefinitely. D.18th emailed me about a week after that, asking how Aidillia's indef impacted their sanctions, and since it was then apparent that Aidillia had been the instigator all along, I told D.18th that their interaction ban was moot (). The timeline is off because I was taking a wikibreak at the time and didn't respond for a few weeks. I believe this to be a reasonable application of WP:IAR: trying to abide by the restriction while the other party completely ignored it and was actively antagonizing them with sockpuppets made it unreasonably difficult for D.18th to edit.

But I didn't anticipate Aidillia getting unblocked, and now it's complicated, and both users still have a lot of topic overlap. I'm not sure what the best way forward is here - I don't want to see D.18th punished because of an administrative error when nobody has raised an issue with their editing in months (as far as I'm aware, I haven't been keeping tabs), but at the same time what is now effectively a one-way interaction ban is untenable. My only thought is to also lift the interaction ban for Aidillia, but they have not asked (again as far as I know). Probably this should go back to the community again, and I'm happy to start that discussion unless you have any other thoughts? Courtesy ping Goldsztajn, Sennecaster and jlwoodwa who have also encountered this issue.

Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not advocating they be punished for anything that happened after they were told their ban was listed, but I agree we either should remove the ban for both or reinstate it as two ways - but I think the community needs to decide. CoconutOctopus talk 22:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I've had my fill of doing user conduct things for a while outside of my ADMINACCT responsibilities, so whatever outcome there is I don't expect much participation from me. This definitely should go back to the community, however. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

hey sir I think you by mistake me I don't know why the reason you give is false I don't know who the president is the president of Pakistan or president of America I abuse like the blame on me I never ever abuse anyone in my life I'm Muslim and abuse anyone is a sin in my religion if you don't want me to join Wikipedia then sample banned me don't blame me of anything I didn't do thank you Nasir Ul Deen (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear User Ivanvector,

You were correct to "edit" my comments on Koavf's talkpage but unless you own a home, townhome or condo which you bought perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, many Canadians are facing an impossible housing situation sadly. If you see this 2025 rates.ca article: https://rates.ca/resources/how-much-money-do-you-need-to-buy-home-canada , it clearly says that a single homebuyer must earn $255,000 to even get a stress tested loan for a single family home in Metro Vancouver whereas in Metro Toronto, its $232,000. Halifax is a bit cheaper at $129,000 but the problem is anyone who earns an income that high faces an income tax rate of about 45-50+% in Canada.

I presently work as a real estate appraiser in Metro Vancouver and had to take a rear photo of a brand new high rise condo in August 2025...and sadly, there 3-4 homeless people sleeping on the ground near the area where I had to take the photo in Surrey, BC within Metro Vancouver...which was in front of a neighbouring low rise condo. Most people cannot afford to buy single family homes today in Metro Vancouver and it was never this bad under Harper or Chretien who kept immigration at between 250,000 to 310,000 a year. Townhomes and Condos are not cheap either today...not including strata. Inflation has impacted real estate prices. Both PM Chretien and Harper kept a reasonable and stable volume of immigrants to Canada until JT decided to increase it to almost 500,000 a year until Canadians had a backlash to his policies as the BBC reported here. The price boom happened with investor speculation on condos and with JT dramatically increasing immigration rates. So, JT--in his last year in power--finally cut immigration rates throughout Canada which has resulted in falling rents...but the problem is with inflation after covid, food and housing has stayed so much more expensive. I remember in the 1990s that some left wing activists in BC who did not like Walmart Canada expanding into their city or municipality complained about "the high cost of low prices" but today everything is expensive...and many people go to Dollarama or Costco--which incidentally is a US company for more value--just to get more value or to survive the hit to their wallet. Few people can afford to eat the recommended healthy Italian or Greek diet of olives and fresh vegetables which are quite expensive.

Meanwhile, more poor or low income Canadians are homeless in the large and small streets of Canada as this source notes: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/torontos-homeless-population-more-than-doubled-between-2021-and-2024-report

These are facts....and while I don't know PEI or Atlantic Canada, I suspected that you have homeless camps too in your 4 Atlantic provinces. In 2026, I may have to quit my job as there are too many real estate appraisers in Metro Vancouver...I am barely surviving on my salary--and I wonder if I can even get another job since I have high functioning autism and part time work won't help pay the bills. People with severe autism have to be hospitalised as they cannot even feed themselves but I am not in that situation. Life is quite hard. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Wikipedia is not a platform for political soapboxing. If you do not stop bothering people with your anti-immigrant propaganda, you will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• Dear Ivanvector,

This is my last message to you. If you had even seen my userpage, you will have noticed that "I AM an Immigrant who was born in Malaysia." My parents and our family legally immigrated to Canada in 1989 under PM Mulroney but too many immigrants who come in a short period of time drives everyone's wages down and pushes housing prices or rents up which JT never considered. I used to work at the Langley, BC Real Canadian Superstore or "Loblaws" in Metro Vancouver between 1998 to 2008 when all the cashiers positions were manned by young women--who got many long hours and a good salary--but today most of them have been automated out of a job by self serving machines. So, what are young women supposed to do today to even earn money or afford a condo? I thought I could have a conversation with a fellow Canadian in PEI...on the cost of living and low wages...but I was wrong. I am sorry. It is my mistake. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• PS: These are some wikipedia articles that I personally created, typed and sourced myself from my 20 years on wikipedia: Dush, Egypt, Daniel Polz, TT218, TT219, Giulio Farina, Paheri and Austroboletus asper I do good work here and I wrote and sourced most images and information for Neferneferuaten, Tutankhamun's immediate predecessor, too. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Please look into their new SPI case, they are indeed again socking using their Commons account "Sense Dense" and contributing anonymously to avoid block here ~2025-40876-14 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Plus forgot to mention they are abusing as well see their recent edit on Talk:Imran Khan#Change image ~2025-40876-14 (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Handled, for now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Just wondering if something is amiss, Ivanvector? You repeatedly make proposals that mention "multiple accounts" as if my entire recent involvement isn't solely directed towards making the policy avoid conflating temporary and registered accounts now that WMF in their (in)finite wisdom have added another type of account than the only one that previously existed, the registered account.

You haven't objected to anything I have said, so it doesn't appear as if you disagree. But you wouldn't repeatedly suggest phrasings such as "You should always disclose if you're using multiple accounts" if you had considered how regular people would go "hang on, I'm using an account, do I need to disclose my temporary account changed last week???" and similar.

So I though to check in on you and ask if you had any thoughts you wanted to convey directly to me. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Operation Raise the Colours on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: as I understand it, the underlying module for the citation templates parses the wikitext source for the page and looks for the templates that specify the date format. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thread was closed, I'd like to continue this. Was the way you handled this discussion fully necessary? I wasn't aware of the full context, I was even willing to partially retract claim. But in between, your responses were unnecessarily condescending and pointed towards me, even involving a threat to block me despite the fact that I was raising concern about an issue that another admin had expressed concern about as well. Did I treat you so poorly first that I deserved sarcastic jabs and a threat? grapesurgeon (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: I logged off after my last comment in that thread and didn't see the rest, or that it had been closed, until this morning. My assertive response was intended for the administrators I was directly replying to, who were suggesting to block a user who hadn't yet had an opportunity to respond and on the basis of a five-months-old SPI with no new evidence of recent, ongoing misconduct having been presented (courtesy ping voorts and asilvering). I also said "we don't block users for asking for help", and then threatened to block you when you were doing exactly that, and that was inappropriate. I apologize for having made that threat.

Since you and a TA did provide some evidence to investigate after I had logged off, I had a better look:

• First off, we can pretty clearly establish that User:DaveZ123 is the person who operates the website at https://transliterationtools.blogspot.com, run by an account named "Dave" and created in January 2016. We can also pretty clearly say that User:JackonLee54 operates https://transliterationisfun.blogspot.com, run by an account named "Jackon" who joined Blogspot in December 2015 (the blog itself is broken and doesn't indicate a creation date). It's probably not a coincidence that both of the Blogspot users also have their own distinct side projects of transliterating the Bible verse John 3:16 into various non-Latin script languages.
  • DaveZ123's first invitation to another user to review their tool, in January 2016, was a link to Jackon's blog (). But prior to that they also at least once asked a user to review an unrelated transliteration tool (), and also asked once about helping with a translation to a test wiki they were working on (), which was also about a Christian church. At the time they hosted a list of free online transliteration tools on their user page ().
  • Both users have promoted other users' applications for advanced permissions on the Hakka Wikipedia (, ).
  • I found one instance of JackonLee54 inviting a user to review their blog () and DaveZ123 later inviting that same user to comment on a Hakka Wikipedia discussion (). That user is also a frequent contributor to multiple languages.
  • User:A-eng hasn't edited in over five years so I'm not going to spend too much time on them. They also appear to be a user interested in multiple languages and transliteration of Bible verses into non-Latin scripts, and they have at least once invited a user to review Jackon's blog. They also were active on the incubator wiki, but it's pretty clear this account is abandoned.
• To me, this could be one person with multiple accounts, but I don't understand why they would bother. It's just as plausible that this is several people who share an interest in a very niche topic (Asian Christian churches, and transliterations of specifically John 3:16).

Focusing only on DaveZ123 as they're the only account that is active:

• The two diffs you provided here are two examples of DaveZ123 asking for help with a translation, which looks to me to be the same Bible verse. You said these were examples of them asking for help to translate material for their blog, but it's just as likely they were asking for help from editors who listed themselves as proficient speakers of those languages and used the translation to contribute to something on the incubator. I can't quite follow their contribs there since they're mostly non-English, but neither Dave's main blog nor Jackon's John 3:16 blog (both the more active of the two) have any new posts since July (Dave) or since 2023 (Jackon). Based on the evidence, you can only get to "they're doing this to promote their blog" if you assume bad faith.
• In the same edit you said that they're only using Wikipedia to ask users to create content for their blog. Looking only at their English contribs does give that impression, but that unravels quickly when you consider their global contributions, where they're clearly also working with these users on other wikis to create Wikipedia content, and also don't seem to be updating their blogs. I get that you might not have thought to check global contribs, and the tools we have for it are not the best anyway.
• In a subsequent edit you provided more diffs of you removing links to their blogs from articles, but those diffs don't indicate when they were added nor by who. So I checked:
  • Teochew Romanization: added by DaveZ123 19 October 2024 ()
  • Xiao'erjing: added by JackonLee54 31 March 2024 ()
  • Chữ Nôm: added by A-eng 3 February 2016 ()
  • Hinghwa Romanized: added by User:Lo Ximiendo (who is now User:Apisite) 27 June 2018 ()
  • Kienning Colloquial Romanized: added by JackonLee54 8 July 2016 ()
  • Pha̍k-fa-sṳ: added by JackonLee54 22 January 2016 ()

So those are not particularly "recent" additions either, and one was by an entirely unrelated user. If you like, the {{link summary}} template generates links to tools you can use to find other instances, or instances on other wikis, like so:

• transliterationtools.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• transliterationisfun.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Getting to the main issues:
  • The use (and possible abuse) of multiple accounts is really secondary here. Most likely they would be considered meatpuppets if there is any wrongdoing otherwise.
  • The tools they've linked to don't seem to be set up to generate revenue, but our spam guidelines don't require that the external website being promoted is commercial, only that the on-wiki activity is intended to promote it and serves no other purpose. I think they probably added these links in good faith thinking that the tools they created would be useful; people do add external links to useful free-to-use tools quite frequently, and it's generally acceptable when the content enhances the reader's understanding of the topic, sometimes even if it is commercial in nature. But you've also said that their content is also incorrect, which is a different sort of issue. I think you're right to remove links to inaccurate external content, and since they're doing this on many wikis and presumably using their content in the incubator wikis, this seems like something that should be reported at meta for global attention. I can help with that, but I will be travelling today so I'll have to come back to it.
  • Regarding asking Wikipedia users for help with content for their own website: Wikipedia is meant to be a free information resource, and explicitly allows commercial use of its content. People use Wikipedia for information for their business presentations or school homework or research papers or whatever else all the time. DaveZ123 needed help with translations and went specifically to users who noted themselves as proficient in those languages; they could have asked at the reference desk but they seem to have decided to go to those users directly instead. We may have ethical concerns about recruiting Wikipedia volunteers to generate content for a commercial project (if that's what it is) but ultimately nothing forbids it, and those users are free to choose to participate or not.

I'm going to have to come back to this later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The assertive responses were pretty clearly cutting towards marks that I directly made. While I appreciate that you made an apology for the threat, the rest of the sarcasm and twisting my words was grossly inappropriate and still needs to be apologized for.

I still disapprove of not having expectations of DaveZ123 and his sock(s) needing to disclose his accounts and when he's doing stuff for Wikipedia or not. I think it'd be better if someone talked to him. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, even if the assertive responses were meant for other admins, why would that behavior be appropriate to them either? Your words were cutting past the point of necessity. Why? grapesurgeon (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot give you an explanation for things that you think I said, and I have already addressed what I did say. The other admins (who were pinged when I first replied to you here) know how to find this page if they want to discuss my replies to them.

As for DaveZ123, you could be forgiven for not having read all of my brain dump above, but the tl;dr is I don't think there's anything wrong going on here. They don't appear to have any other accounts, certainly not active ones, so I don't see what forcing them to disclose other accounts would accomplish. Editors are allowed to have side projects, they're allowed to try to find relevant expertise here, and you're allowed to decline their requests for help. I think that the links you've highlighted are relevant to the topics where they were added, and not unduly promotional, although I also think it was right to remove them if you think they're providing incorrect information. Why don't you try talking with them about your concerns? I don't see what there is for me to do here, unless you want me to start that discussion instead? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Reread this comment and tell me this isn't pointed towards me using my own words exactly. Why would you use my words against asilvering? That wouldn't make sense.

I may escalate this further if there's no apology. Doubling down on this behavior is not a good look. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

In the close at Talk:Gulf of Mexico you wrote "actually no you can't discuss new titles during the moratorium." But the moratorium encompasses all aspects of prose, not just the titling, so could you please address that also? Also Wikipedia states that "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them"... you are directly involved in this series of discussions. Isn't that bad form? I think a fully uninvolved editor should do the closure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): have a look at the new moratorium discussion. Twenty-one editors commented; twenty said something to the effect of "there's still nothing new to discuss and we're tired of it." You were the other one. Now there's another drive-by comment suggesting a rename (in the form of suggesting that the moratorium doesn't prevent discussion of it) with nearly everyone who replied expressing exhaustion in advance about the prospect of now having to discuss the moratorium's scope ad nauseam. Except, again, for you, who took the opportunity to complain about the moratorium and cast aspersions about everyone else's political motivations. I tried to write a neutral close expressing the nearly-unanimous view while also avoiding calling you out, and also wrote it while drafting an ANI complaint in another tab about your behaviour on that page. I eventually decided that was premature, but then it took you 17 minutes to find my talk page to complain about the close.

I'll revert, but Jesus Christ man, take a look in the mirror. Let me be the last one to tell you to drop the damn stick already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You are full of condensed all-soup. Have you even read what I said because you are not understanding me at all. I wrote drive-bys by anon IPs need to stop. They should be reverted at once. Are we clear on that? I said that moratoriums at Wikipedia happen when we have exhausted new discussions and everyone wants things to end. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. We had one discussion on a rename and it wasn't long and exhausting. We don't do moratoriums and what "might" happen. And we don't do them for a year. But that said, I agree 100% that this title isn't even close to being renamed. No new info has happened so I think that would be ridiculous. Are we clear on that? However we had no discussions on prose content really at all, especially the lead and alternate names. That got thrown into the moratorium and that is dead wrong. That's closing off tweaks that could make the article better and we cant discuss that either???? That's is definitely not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work and I will defend Wikipedia protocol and what is best for our many readers whether they are grade school children or senior citizens. Something stinks the way this was swept aside and an involved editor closing this doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. And I saw that at least one other administrator agreed with me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXXII Lunar Calendar

Ivanvector,
Have a great 2026 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2026 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2026}} to user talk pages.

– 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 18:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy. I understand why you blocked @Glebushko0703:, but I am coming across 'odd' behaviour by 'red-cloured' editors at Estonia. Why do they resist having Estonia's short description matching with Latvia's & Lithuania's? Also, how is my (or anyone else) attempts to do so - "polltically motivated"? There seems to be resistance, soley to resist. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, CoolCuteBear (who's made only 30 edits, over nearly 6 years) suddenly shows up? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Of @CoolCuteBear's 30 edits since 2023 (they made none before then), 22 of them seem directly related to Estonia. Would it not be more "odd" if they engaged in literally any dispute other than an Estonia-related one? LordCollaboration (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyway - I've changed the short description at Estonia to "Country in Northern Europe", to now match it with Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden & Finland. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is D.18th is requesting to lift the partial block from File: namespace. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙻𝚎𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚊 𝚖𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎←} 14:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Since you probably familiarized yourself with this RfC when advising earlier, I request your guidance and oversight regarding a series of actions by editor Robminchin on the above Talk page for List of oldest universities where the RfC is posted. My goal is to ensure that ongoing discussions proceed constructively, transparently, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Here is a summary of concerns:

• Repeated selective removals of WikiProject banners: most recently, the removal of WikiProject Canada tag from the Talk page, despite the article including Canadian universities and an ongoing RfC concerning oldest Canadian universities. Other geographically broad banners (e.g., for WP:WikiProject Europe) were retained, suggesting selective enforcement rather than adherence to project scope. These removals may limit normal editorial participation and reduce notification of relevant projects' members.
• Violation of the Three-Revert Rule (3RR): within the past 24 hours, Robminchin has performed multiple reverts of my edits despite mine creating a new Talk section and inviting him to discuss it there first, including the most recent removal of the Project Canada tag, which may raise concerns under WP:3RR.
• Obstruction of discussion visibility: the above procedural Talk section I added to document selective removals and invite constructive discussion was moved below the reference list, far from the voting entries, which obscures its visibility. References are normally at the bottom of Wikipedia articles and respective Talk pages. This effectively interferes with normal participation and discussion flow, impacting other editors’ ability to engage.
• Inaccurate procedural claims: Robminchin has repeatedly stated that adding a relevant WikiProject tag for discussion purposes is outside the scope of the project, contrary to WP norms and the bot-driven Project Canada Article Alert system. These claims misrepresent Wikipedia policy and project practices.
• Pattern of ownership-like behavior (WP:OWN): over several days, Robminchin has repeatedly asserted control over procedural aspects of the Talk page (selective removal of relevant WikiProject banners, restoration of a claimed “status quo ante,” relocation of procedural discussion sections, and repeated reverts during an active RfC), while discouraging or obstructing alternative procedural approaches. This pattern aligns with concerns described at WP:OWN regarding editors treating pages as under their control rather than subject to collaborative process.
• Request:

- Guidance on how to safely maintain the Project Canada tag and procedural Talk sections without violating 3RR or other policies. - Oversight or intervention to ensure that repeated selective removals and obfuscation of Talk content do not continue. - Advice on whether Robminchin’s actions may fall under harassment/obstruction provisions under Wikipedia rules and what corrective action is appropriate.

Supporting evidence: Full edit history for the past 24 hours, including removals, reverts, and content moves:

• 20:35, 20 December 2025 Robminchin −23 Restore status quo ante during discussion
• 20:34, 20 December 2025 Robminchin +18 →Request for comment: Inclusion of University of New Brunswick: Complete move
• 20:34, 20 December 2025 Robminchin −20 →Repeated selective removals of a WikiProject banner most related to active discussions: Move reflist back
• 20:32, 20 December 2025 Robminchin +942 →Repeated selective removals of a WikiProject banner most related to active discussions

The relevant diffs showing repeated removals and Talk-page restructuring:

• Removal of WikiProject Canada tag during active RfC:

• Second removal of same tag within 24h:

• Moving Talk section below references:

• Third revert within 24h (possible 3RR issue):

Summary:

The combination of repeated selective removals, procedural misstatements, obstruction of discussion, and multiple reverts appears to interfere with normal editorial participation and warrants administrative guidance to ensure the RfC proceeds constructively, visibly, and according to Wikipedia norms. Thank you for your guidance.Tinterest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

URGENT: The UNB RfC has been effectively suppressed from Project Canada’s Article Alerts feed due to unilateral tag removal by the above policy-violating editor. This significantly limits visibility to relevant WikiProject members and risks procedural mishandling. Immediate intervention is now requested. Tinterest (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tinterest: please don't post LLM-generated complaints here. A short, concise summary of the issue is all that is needed for attention and action. If you need immediate assistance for an ongoing issue, you'll get a faster response by posting to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Especially do not post LLM-generated content there, it will be removed. I'm not quoting policy, I am telling you what will actually happen.

This isn't a hill worth dying on. You did everything right: you boldly added the WikiProject banner, you started a discussion when it was removed again, consensus is against including it. On Wikipedia, decisions are made by discussion and consensus, not by policies and guidelines, and sometimes discussions don't go the way we think they should. If you've made your case and others don't agree, all you can do is move on. Whether or not to include a discussion page under a WikiProject for the purpose of publicizing a single discussion would be a silly thing to pull an edit-warring block over.

I noticed that the RFC was listed as a "policy" RFC, which wasn't correct. That category is for discussions concerning Wikipedia policies themselves, not for content issues where those policies may contribute to the discussion. I have relisted the RFC under the history and society categories, which should draw more contextually appropriate attention. I've also posted a notice at several relevant WikiProjects. Don't worry about the article alerts: our RFC guideline lists ways that you can publicize an RFC but doesn't mention article alerts at all. If it helps: there are currently 448 editors subscribed to WT:CANADA, plus another 930 subscribed to the noticeboards of the other projects where I've posted a notice, although there's likely some overlap in those numbers. There are only 28 editors subscribed to the project's alerts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into the matter and correct the classification. That clarification resolves my procedural concerns, and I’ll defer to the discussion as it proceeds. I appreciate the guidance and oversight. Tinterest (talk) 17:29, 22 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.

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger: if you looked at all at this page's history before biting a new user, you would have seen that I created it for a user who could not create it themselves and requested it at WP:EFFP. You ought therefore to have known that I would object to its speedy deletion. It was NOT vandalism, and at least one citation to a reliable source was provided, although it wasn't in the right format. @BusterD: this was an inappropriate use of speedy deletion; please restore the page. And please be more careful to check that pages you are deleting actually qualify for the stated criterion. I could name you a few admins who have lost their bit for exactly this sort of indiscriminate deletion. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'm sorry, but how does this fit on Wikipedia? Tell me. I'm not biting a new user, that was not my intention, but how does this fit on Wikipedia? Also one reliable source is usually not enough. And even then, the two sources cited did not display due to errors, so I could not access them either way. I apologise if this came off as biting a new user, it was not my intention, this is just a very unusual subject matter for an article to have, not that it automatically doesn't belong on here because of that, but still. I apologise if my conduct was off, because again that was not my intention and also you could've told us that earlier. @BusterD probably thought that it was vandalism because of the lack of sources or the strange title, otherwise, he would've removed the notice. Again, please understand that my intent was not malicious. Thank you. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Again, to clarify, I was not doing this to harm anyone, it is correct to criticise me for not looking at the page's history, and I admit that was a mistake. Even so, I'm still unaware of any articles we've had on here that are about Great Meme Resets. Of course, I could be ignorant here, too, but I still question the merit of this having an article written about it. I don't want to profusely apologise, I really hate it when I slip up here, and I must heed, if it did come off as Wikipedia:BITE then that was a terrible mistake by me. I'm the last person that would want to do that. I hope that you understand that with the amount of nonsensical drafts we get every day, it can be easy for one made in good faith to get treated badly, it doesn't excuse my ignorance, but still. Again, I apologise for my complete and total ignorance. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger: I appreciate this explanation, and that you were trying to help. I do think you went about it badly, though. First off, please read WP:NOTVANDALISM. I do understand that we get a lot of junk submitted through AFC, and I have deleted a lot of pages from there myself. I saw this title at WP:EFFP and at first made the same assumption as you, but the content in the filter (which was the same as what I posted to the draft) seemed to me like a legitimate attempt at writing an encyclopedia article, and so I helped the user create it instead. I wasn't expecting them to submit it without trying to improve it at all first, but the AFC template does produce a big "submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. If instead they tried to submit something like "hurr durr skibidi 67 dank meme rizz" then I would have done the same as you, but AFC is a process designed for new users. I think you need to be a little more willing to assume good faith and offer advice and guidance to a new user submitting content even if it seems on the surface to be inappropriate for a separate article. There is no speedy deletion criterion for lack of notability, and drafts normally are not deleted only for notability concerns. I didn't know that we already had some content on this topic on another page, I might have suggested to the new user that they contribute to that first instead of trying to write a separate article. You skipped all of that and went straight to calling them a vandal and erasing their work. I'm also not that happy about being called a vandal myself, but I know that's a template.

A couple things:

1. You mentioned that you couldn't access the sources, but they were provided in the page source and you could have extracted the URLs and entered them into your browser yourself. One was to this article in Forbes and discusses this "meme reset" in detail. The other was to KnowYourMeme and I didn't try to open it.
2. You don't need to ping users on their own talk pages. I get a notification for every edit that's made on this page. I don't get a second notification for the ping, though.

Thanks again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't disagree that I went about this badly, I try my best to assume good faith as much as I can, but I must tell you this now:

1. Know Your Meme is generally unreliable. The Forbes article is probably fine, though.
2. I'm well aware of that (pinging users on their own talk pages), this is more of a force of habit. (I just like pinging people)

Regardless, that was not my goal, if you look at my other AfC reviews, while the stats are entirely declines, I always leave a long comment explaining what the editor did wrong. This is the exception, not the norm, as a mentor and a frequent responder to questions in the Teahouse, I'd be an idiot to act like that with new users. Once again, my conduct was off, and this was a mistake, but this isn't what I intend to do as a user, I hope you understand that. I recommend that you restore the draft (I'd assume that you can do so), and I'll let @Codercat94 know what they should do to improve it once it is restored. Again, a very big mistake on my part, I apologise, but I want to make it clear this is not and will not be a reoccurring thing with me. Thanks. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'm aware of what is and isn't vandalism, I just went through this with a poor assumption. I am a bit new to reviewing AfCs, and I must admit, I don't like thinking too much when doing that, not an excuse, I'm probably just having some nervousness, I never really thought I'd be one so soon but stupidity like that causes me to see what looks like a draft made in bad-faith but is actually a draft made in good-faith and reject it. Again, very big mistake on my part, and I think this is a good lesson for me on what not to do next time. Cheers. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

An update, I have given them advice on their talk page. Once again, I apologise for this, and again, this is not the norm with me but greater strides will be taken now. The best course of action now is to move on from this, as I'm not really sure what more we can do here. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026 has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026. Thanks! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

OH COME ON, I THOUGHT IT WOULD NOTIFY THE RIGHT USER. Sorry for the shouting, but that was meant for @Codercat94, not you. I'm sure you knew that, but damn this is unintuitive sometimes. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

My bad, I should have checked page history for any previous A7 declines before tagging. But, as a new NPPer, I'm confused why the initial A7 was declined, since I thought it checked all the boxes. 24 hours have passed since last edit by creator, and the draft lacks a claim of significance (a Fandom/Miraheze wiki for a topic that has been rejected as nonnotable on AfC. Draft:Blooket). Can you point to what I've missed? Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Please disregard—I found your explanation at User talk:Hosterr. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ca: (edit conflict) I was already writing this, I think you're owed an explanation. The deleting administrator and I have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a claim of significance, and you're caught up in it. I apologize, I am going to walk way from this (courtesy ping CoconutOctopus again). I see that the page has been nominated for deletion, and I think that is the appropriate next step.

It's my view that a credible claim of significance is any statement that asserts that the topic is important, and which is not obviously false on its face. A statement similar to "this wiki is important for players of this game" is plainly a statement of importance, and it is reasonable to believe that the topic is actually important to players of the game. It's a far lower standard than notability, which is determined through discussion (for example at AFD). An article that fails the CCS standard looks like "I go to school with Bob, he has the best Pokemon collection." or "My dog digs the best holes." Most A7 deletions are improper, it is very overused, and separate from that there is an epidemic of administrators deleting any CSD-tagged page without bothering to check if the page actually meets the criterion, and there have been several administrators who have lost their privileges over that very issue. We are here to help people build the encyclopedia, and we don't do that by trashing every new editor's contribution for not being perfect on the first try. I did suggest to the article's creator that they should maybe try adding this to the draft they're already working on for the game itself, and work on establishing notability for that topic rather than trying to create spinoffs, and I think that was a better use of all of our time. They're a long way off, but I see this as more of an uphill battle than a lost cause.

But besides all of that, thank you for your work in new page patrolling. It's an area where Wikipedia always needs more volunteers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy explanation. While I still believe the same claim could applied to some three million wikis that are hosted on Fandom, I understand A7 misuse is common issue (and have seen some myself) requiring higher sensitivities. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you in my investigation after i discovered the Article "Remigration" and lost my trust in humanity for a few seconds. I probably hold very different political opinions. But I am firmly convinced, that noone is evil. So I wanted to ask an open question.

Wikipedia is inherently conservative (as in resistent to change) with it's systems of seniority.

Do you think this risks Wikipedia's Interpretation of reality diverging significantly from the commonly held one (in interested circles)?

If so Wikipedia risks becoming an instrument not to describe what is true, but to proclaim what ought to be true.

Kind regards, a wikipedian who prefers to remain anonymous ~2026-17845-6 (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Template:Alternative text missing has been nominated for merging with Template:No alt text. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 18:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)