BFDI and Object Shows have been blocked on Wikipedia for a long time, due to BFDI not having "correct sources or something like that." Battle For Dream Island and many other Object Shows have been on news sources, and BFDI is also getting an episode in theaters.
Best regards,
Vin Double
@Vinthepro7vvVinthepro7v (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Until those news sources are provided and clearly demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG, it is highly unlikely that the article will be unblocked. I recommend you review WP:BFDI, as this has been a surprisingly contentious topic. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
ToonHive on X, Fox 59, Fox 40, KTLA 5, Bubbleblabber, Fox 8, KLAS 8 News Now, Business Insider, WLNS 6. Vinthepro7v (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing preventing you from writing a draft, if you believe that the sources exist to make the subject now. The fact that people have gone to the troule of writing WP:BFDI should give you pause, and you should read that first, but if you genuinely think that the sourcing has improved then go for it - write a draft and submit it to AfC. Just be aware that you might be wasting your time, and other people's, if you haven't first established that there are sources that are independent, secondary, reliable and which give the subject significant depth of coverage. GirthSummit (blether) 04:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: There actually is something preventing them from creating a draft. Personally I think it was a horrible idea to delete and then salt Draft:Battle for Dream Island—in draftspace that really should be reserved only for blatant spam and BLP violations, and see generally WP:NOSALT—but that's been the community's consensus so far at MfD. Sigh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, wow - sorry, I didn't realise that even the draft was salted. I guess that someone could draft something in a sandbox, but absent any new and significantly improved sources they might be better advised to spend their time... well, doing anything at all. GirthSummit (blether) 04:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
It's blacklisted too; talk about overkill.Mostly folks get pointed at either WT:BFDI or WP:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island to propose new sources before going to the effort of writing a draft that can't get accepted. —Cryptic 04:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
It really does baffle me. One of those cases of everyone just pressing the bigger, scarier button each time the previous button doesn't work, without any consideration of whether that still accomplishes our goals. What exactly happens if we let people write the draft? A crappy draft exists? Most drafts are crappy. Most have a lower chance of becoming notable than BFDI. Most have a higher risk of hosting spam or BLP violations. Versus the status quo of constantly having to field questions from people who, reasonably, want to know why they can't even do the initial step toward creating an article. We could always have a big notice at the top saying like, "Current consensus is that BFDI is not notable. This draft may not be submitted to AfC without a consensus on the talk page that that has changed" or something like that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
That seems an uncharitable assessment of previous admin actions. Looking through the history, what seems to have happened was that the draft existing led to disruption elsewhere, amid wider regular BFDI-related issues which if I recall at one point included admin conduct issues. Looking into it, apparently salting can be temporary like other protections, which could be another tool in the box, but the concept is rare enough that I can't recall ever seeing it discussed anywhere. CMD (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't mean to criticize the admin actions in themselves. The deletion and salting were reasonable implementations of community consensus, and other things stemmed from there. It's the community consensus that I think has been wrong and should change. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure how community consensus works here. There was consensus against whatever draft repeatedly got recreated, but that is not necessarily a consensus against any draft ever, and non-admins can't really assess that at any rate. WP:BFDI says only that "drafts about BFDI have often been deleted", not that there is consensus against any existing. Half a decade on, I suspect an admin could boldly unsalt the draftspace unilaterally, so long as they were prepared to resalt if "drafts being submitted for review and declined over and over again" issues emerge again. CMD (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Looking at WP:BFDI, it appears to me that what happend was that the community completely ran out of patience after repeated pushing over and over and over completely poisoned the well for anything related to BFDI, largely because of...well, what started this thread was a very mild example, but it's an example nontheless - "the sources totally exist bro for this totally notable thing that Wikipedia must have an article about". Was salting the draft overkill? Maybe, but take a look at Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?#List of deletion nominations - especially that footnote "d". If there really is new sourcing that evidences notability, somebody can request the draft page be unsalted - but Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island, which includes references to this movie-theater screened episode, is telling reading. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Get this editor a "True...". jp×g🗯️ 15:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
@Girth Summit @Tamzin @The Bushranger @Chipmunkdavis, flagging a conversation on my Talk (courtesy ping @JBW, no action needed) about Object Show. I lifted that SALT. I haven't followed BFDI since I was more active in XFDs but if there are extant SALTings of mine, feel free to undo if you feel they're no longer helping. StarMississippi 01:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
All three of the titles mentioned there are currently also blacklisted. Awesome. —Cryptic 18:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
@Cryptic as it was two years ago, truly can't remember the details. Assuming that also blocks @Vinthepro7v from using sandbox?
If it needs changing, or there are now sufficient sources, feel free StarMississippi 00:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Realistically, all the blacklistings do is prevent creation at a page named after "Battle for Dream Island" or "BFDI" or "Object Show" or several other variants. It doesn't do anything about individual users' sandboxes like User:Example/sandbox.Probably the way to go forward, if we want to unsalt something, would be to have an administrator create a single page like Draft:Battle for Dream Island leaving all the other protections and blacklistings in place, and have people work on it there. It's not worth the disruption to try unprotection or unblacklisting in general. I do think it likely that anyone who does take us up on it and work on it there is wasting their time because of the continued sourcing issue, but so long as it's confined to one page, it's wasting only the minimum amount possible of everyone else's. —Cryptic 00:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
When can BFDI be unsalted? Vinthepro7v (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Pinging MER-C, who salted the draft page back in 2019. Can we try downgrading? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to see a request from a well-established Wikipedian with good sources before unsalting this. MER-C 18:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Vinthepro7v (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Vinthepro7v, writing a new Wikipedia article isn't easy. You need solid sources, and the lack of those is the reason why the article (and draft, which is very rare) was salted. What I'm about to say is not going to be nice, but I think it's important that someone says this to you before you waste a whole load of your own time, and a little of other people's. Further up this thread, you suggest that a random Twitter/X account is a possible source for this new article - that suggestion leads me to think that you have not read WP:RS at all. You also mention dubious sources like Business Insider and Bubbleblabber. I don't really know what the other sources you mention are. If you are serious about this undertaking, you are going to have to do some proper research into the sources you hope to cite, and convince people that they comply with the reliable sourcing requirements. That needs to happen before you start work on the draft. So far, you have made only 13 edits, most of which have been deleted for various reasons. I hope you don't think it would be unkind or unfair of me to suggest that you don't really know how to go about writing an article. Starting your editing career with a subject like this is, perhaps, foolhardy. If you want to contribute here, kick it off with a few articles about obviously notable subjects first, learn the lay of the land, and once you're up to speed you will be in a better position to judge whether or not this article is one that you want to try to write. GirthSummit (blether) 03:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll also point out that every Wikipedia article is more work for the community to maintain when the creator inevitably stops editing it, and it will most likely start out as an orphan article. Orphan articles attract a lot of attention from people like me, and there are lots of WikiHunters there looking for an easy target. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
This is just to note that this topic is also listed at WP:DEEPER. Sandstein 14:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I understand. I’m not a Wikipedia Editor, I am just trying to get it unstated so that if someone (a Wikipedian) could make one. Vinthepro7v (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
If Draft:Battle for Dream Island is ever unsalted and restored, it may be best to at leastextended confirmed protect it (as is the case for Draft:CaseOh) with no prejudice against full protection if it seems likely that a substantial amount of extended confirmed editors would have the audacity to fool around and find out what happens if they try to resubmit it, even if the editing interface shows them an "active arbitration remedies" type of warning. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I strongly oppose loosening any of the protections or blacklistings here; I think the current situation, in which we simply don't allow attempts to create an article or draft on this subject, is correct, and am astonished that this AN thread was given any daylight at all rather than being shot down on sight. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I very nearly closed it with my first post in the thread as the closing summary, but was feeling charitable... no good deed! - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Salted Drafts
I have a few thoughts that are not entirely consistent. First, the community did not salt the title in draft space. The community deleted the draft article, because the proponents of the draft were being disruptive. There were two more disruptive recreations of the draft, at which point an administrator protected the title to prevent continued disruption.
Second, now that ECP-Protect is available, I am not sure that admin-salting a title in draft space is ever a good idea. Admin-salting a title in draft space almost always leads to changing the spelling or capitalization of the title in draft space, requiring more vigilance to prevent versions of the article from being sneaked into article space. Maybe in retrospect the title should have been admin-salted in draft space for two or three months, rather than indefinitely.
Third, I have two conflicting opinions as to whether Battle for Dream Island should have its protection downgraded to ECP at this time. On the one hand, I think it has been fully protected for about five years too long. On the other hand, I am not sure that this is the time for a downgrade. A request to unlock the title, but with the usual unreliable sources, makes me wonder whether there is off-wiki coordination at this time. So maybe it would be in order to fully protect the title in draft space for a month, so that it will expire in a month, and that then it can be allowed to be used as a draft.
Fourth, the state of BFDI in Wikipedia (no article, no draft, multiple rings of protection to prevent article) is very much the fault of its ultras, overly enthusiastic fans. In their eagerness to get an article into the encyclopedia, they tried various sorts of gaming of titles and other sorts of gaming. This has also happened with other subjects, especially actors and entertainers with cult followings.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
A request to unlock the title, but with the usual unreliable sources, makes me wonder whether there is off-wiki coordination at this time.
I don't think so, just some new editors excited about the in-theater screening and relatively unfamiliar with what makes something notable here. While I'm not sure Vin is the best person to start this draft, I think they're here in good faith. StarMississippi 03:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Admin-salting a title in draft space almost always leads to changing the spelling or capitalization of the title in draft space, requiring more vigilance to prevent versions of the article from being sneaked into article This is why we have title blacklisting, which was used here. And as a general principle I find that style of argument ludicrous - for the rare situations where we really want to even prevent a draft from being created, of course we should signal it by admin salting - "but it might not work" isn't an argument at all, just a futile plea. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Calling it "admin salting" gives the implication that non-admins can salt pages, and that when a non-admin salts a page, the salting has a different effect because the salter isn't an administrator. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Robert is referring to how there are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection (WP:SALT). For instance, Science help is semi-salted, Deleted page is extended-salted, {{image}} is template-salted, and Article Name is fully-salted. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I could probably source an article on this topic so as to be facially over WP:GNG, at least in the sense that "there are newspapers that aren't deprecated on WP:RSN that have stories about it". I'm thinking particularly of this.
The issue here is appears that the BFDI fanbase managed to majorly annoy the Wikipedia community such that any new article is going to get the extra-special-audit approach that it may well not pass. Lots of things that we presently have articles on would not withstand this approach, which is of course not a reason not to disagree with that assessment. Had they not done this, we would probably have a stub article about it somewhere and no-one would care.
Writing entire 2.5k-word essays about why we don't have an article on this and tables of how only one source yet reaches GNG (TBH I think another might be argued, but don't care enough to do so) is probably not the best use of editor time.
I favour unsalting this and just letting people get on with it. I think we're eventually going to have an article on it, once another link on the sources table turns green all along. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Is Business Today considered reliable? What does it mean by "Impact Feature"? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Press release according to source assessment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry. I completely missed that while I was reading the source assessment. It's probably right, but it would be even better if someone could confirm it with a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd say the Plugged In source is quite independent, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
It's independent. It's not great as a source in general as it's for a niche purpose (advising Christian parents on what they should let their kids watch). Like I said, if I cared a stub article could probably be written that would be a WP:GNG pass. The extra-special-audit approach might nuke it, but then it would nuke a lot of things, and why would we apply it?
@Tamzin, Girth Summit, Chipmunkdavis, MER-C, ThadeusOfNazereth, Robert McClenon, GrinningIodize, MrPersonHumanGuy, Pppery, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Star Mississippi, The Bushranger, Jlwoodwa, Sandstein, Cryptic, and JPxG: (did I miss anybody?) I see a lot of people saying effectively "sure, the salting of the draft kind of doesn't make sense right now here in October 2025, but *shrugs*" above. I'm minded to just boldly down-grade the protection of the draft to EC so that people can work on this. To me, the thing here is the emerging of at least one instance of IRS sigcov and arguably another in the past year meaning there is at least a likelihood of a passable draft emerging, plus the passage of time since the original decision. This can be bumped up to fully-protect if BFDI fans become disruptive again. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
My view is as documented at WP:DEEPER: " If somebody finds reliable sources that establish notability for this topic, they should request unsalting a draft page at WP:RFPP and provide these sources there." It seems to me from Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island that the GNG requrements are not yet met, but I have not examined the sources myself. We should not unsalt anything unless there are experienced Wikipedians capable and willing to write a properly sourced stub at least. Sandstein 09:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Now, again I'm going to emphasise that I'm not invested in the existence of this article and if you want to speedy it right now, you can. I think it's only a squeaking-pass of our guidelines, but I think there is nothing wrong with having an EC-protected draft page that people can work on. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah, good I didn't start my own then. Looks draft-acceptable to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Looking at history, one would never have expected a rail tunnel run by France and England, or a space station run by Russia and America, or a notability proposal endorsed by FOARP and JPxG, and yet here we are.
I concur heartily: let 'em have their draft or whatever... jp×g🗯️ 09:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not greatly opposed to allowing one BFDI draft to exist so interested people can work on it, similar to Draft:CaseOh and for several years Raegan Revord. Drafts beyond that can be nuked IMO. There might be a lot of submissions, but a "no changes since last submission" decline is easy to do, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with the unsalting of a draft page. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 10:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I somehow turned off notifications on the thread.
@FOARP you're an established editor, I trust your judgement to do whatever feels appropriate especially together with the source conversation from @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'm mostly offline these coming weeks, feel free to undo any of my protections related to BFDI. StarMississippi 12:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Bah. I'm not going to try to stand up against the consensus people came to here, but I still think allowing complaints of this sort to succeed even as much as this one has makes a mockery of the way Wikipedia's decision-making processes are supposed to work, and we should have just said "no". * Pppery *it has begun... 15:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why the draft should continue to be salted. What's the point of draft space if the same standards as main space are used? Of course, if there is disruption, salting can be reinstated. Any draft written would still have to get through AfC before it gets into main space and once there, like any other article, it could be taken to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The GS regime doesn't do anything except put the area under the extended-confirmed restriction, so you would log it as GS for an extended-confirmed protection and CT for anything else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
A block for violations of the community ECR would be imposed and logged under WP:GS/KURD. However, if those ECR violations also violated CT conduct expectations (WP:CT#Editing a contentious topic) and you don't believe they are unaware of the CT designation (WP:CT#Awareness of contentious topics), it can instead be imposed as CT enforcement and logged at AEL. (Logging a sanction as both GS and CT would be potentially confusing (e.g., for appeals).) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 21:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thanks - looks like I've been getting it right then. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Forwarding appeal on behalf of @Jack6754 for unblock request @ User talk: Jack6754. Their reformed request as suggested by @Yamla (the declining admin) and myself:
"Hello, I am requesting an unbanning from editing Wikipedia, as well as a lifting of the blocks imposed upon my account. I have reflected on my actions over the past few years and am apologetic about my previously disruptive and disrespectful behaviour. My previous account is subject to a community ban and indefinite block due to my past actions as an editor, and I regret being involved in those actions.
I accept that I have edit warred in the past and I am sorry for doing so, and will take pains to refrain from doing so in future. The article 'Black War' which I edit warred on is quite an emotional subject for me and I apologise for allowing that to cloud my judgement, an edit war was not an appropriate means to resolve the dispute of the way that dark historical topic ought to have been described by the opening lede of an article.
I am also sorry for my unproductive contributions to AfD years ago. I've matured in my approach to the site since then, and have gotten a little older. I'm confident that I am better equipped to participate as a productive article creator without getting bogged down in these kinds of procedural arguments that exist in the background.
I would like to resume contributing to the articles on this website. I love creating articles and would like to get back to being a productive editor. It has been over six months since I previously edited the site in any way, and I hope that my willingness to comply with my previous ban demonstrates that I have a newfound respect for the rules and have the ability to be a positive member of the community in the future.
I'm requesting that my account be unbanned 'standard offer' as I have complied with all these restrictions for six months. My intention upon being unbanned is to resume contributing; especially in relation to articles about Australian law, history, music, culture, and architecture.
I would be happy to have a 0RR restriction be imposed on my account as a way to show a willingness to comply with edit warring rules given that I have breached these rules in the past; especially if this restriction would give greater faith in my ability to contribute as an editor. Thank you for considering this request."
Support their unblocking since they show willingness to cooperate and put forth the effort to prove themselves. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Support with the WP:0RR restriction. I think that's enough to minimise disruption and to give them the opportunity to demonstrate they can be constructive. --Yamla (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Support with the WP:0RR restriction as a WP:LASTCHANCE (and I really mean last chance, next time is an indefinite block). They are currently topic banned from deletion discussions; being unblocked does not lift that topic ban and you are still not permitted to discuss AfDs on your talk page, even pointing out relevant policies and guidelines (which did happen previously). Before being sitewide blocked, Jack had indefinite pblocks from WP: and WT: space; those should be reinstated upon the lifting of the siteblock.
This is a laundry list of restrictions, and having reviewed Jack's previously unblock attempt I was left supremely unimpressed with the wikilawyering surrounding the standard offer and their topic ban they engaged in: see generally User talk:Jack4576#Unblock Request. (To Jack's credit, they were not the one engaging in most of the wikilawyering nor did they join the argument that they were permitted to criticize AFD nominations on their talk page.) That being said, I am persuaded that Jack now understands that they were disruptive, and that they can move forward carefully. I sincerely hope that Jack can contribute with fantastic edits and, in due time, appeal each sanction. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster, thank you for recognizing that since then perspectives have now changed and become more conducive to an unblock decision for Jack. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 09:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - I was involved in the page on at least one of the affected pages, but Jack is a content creator with some good work to show for it. I'd be inclined to accept under the Standard Offer. This support applies to lifting the block. If there are topic bans I am unaware of, I have no view on those at this time, but would remain supportive of a lift of the indef. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for reflecting on your actions and taking the time to write this out, Jack. I see you can recognise where you may have gone wrong. I'm convinced you'll contribute constructively from now onwards. jolielover♥talk 16:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for apologising and recognising your fault I support your unblock request as I beleive you have recognised your fault and are willing to contribute productively now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support demonstrates self-awareness of their own impact; reasonable request. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Mean Speech
Closing before a boomerang. This is not "mean speech" nor an issue for AN. StarMississippi 18:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm guessing you're referring to User talk:AirshipJungleman29#a question. I don't see anything in there that would qualify as "mean" or, rather, personal attacks. Also, if you start a thread about an editor (or editors), you must notify them on their talk page. I have done so for you. Aydoh8[whathaveIdonenow?] 13:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
yeah thanks for doing that for me. maybe its because he/she is like so serious and like sharp and, y'know, cuz we were talking about something about caption of image, in there, the way he/she answered me was like kinda y'know, like, this in User talk:AirshipJungleman29#a question: I don't think you do know what clockwise is, is the problem. & Clear as day if you know what clockwise is and in answering me when i told him/her like my edit u undid was improvement he/she just dropped clockwise article link. like y'know, he/she is so cold. Aquifer3001 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
If you truly understood what clockwise meant, you wouldn't be arguing about the order of the captions of the images. AirshipJungleman29 is correct; you are not. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The quote you gave is not a personal attack whatsoever. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Revdel request
No further action needed. StarMississippi 18:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can some kind of admin RD2 all of Sixsevenman67’s edits and edit summaries on User talk:Sixsevenman67. They are really insulting, offensive, and disgusting. 172.58.183.33 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The M.O isn’t the same and the username doesn’t follow the same editing and vandalism pattern. Can an admin please come here ASAP? 172.58.183.33 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
It’s not the LTA themselves, it’s an impersonator because Sixsevenman67 was vandalizing articles that were never vandalized by BMX 172.58.183.33 (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
It’s well past midnight here in Dallas. I’m going to sleepe 172.58.183.33 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't really seem like a BMX sock to me, instead just an impersonator. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Revdel performed. Note that you need only report once. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Can you also please delete their all caps edit summaries? 172.58.183.33 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies if I am in the wrong place - this is my first (hopefully last) time coming to AN. I am writing here to request that @Sarefo's autopatrolled right (granted in 2011 by @Acalamari) in light of discussion at their talk page and the NSPECIES guideline talk page (the latter is a long discussion that only partially pertains to this user). Sarefo has been creating articles on South African spiders (see xtools) using Claude Sonnet 4.1 without disclosing that the content was generated by a LLM and, being autopatrolled, these articles bypassed new page patrol. This was seemingly only discovered because obvious LLM tells and hallucinated statements were noticed in the articles. I don't believe that any admin would grant autopatrolled to a user knowing that they intended to use an LLM to automate the mass creation of articles, hence my request that the right be revoked. AI generated text requires extra scrutiny from editors, not less, and these articles should not be automatically reviewed, and significant use of LLMs should be disclosed.
@Sarefo, can you please clarify the extent of these LLM-generated articles, ie. when you began and which of your many created articles use text generated by Claude? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 01:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
If you read the linked talk page discussion, Sarefo has been asking Claude to write articles, based on specific sources; he saves the AI-written content, reviews it to ensure that it's accurate, and then mass-creates articles when convenient. The basic workflow is not problematic. The rate of upload does not necessarily represent the rate of creating. I'm sometimes batching uploads that were prepared earlier, so doing them in batches is fine. Also note a comment at the bottom of the guideline talk page: I wouldn't be using claude 4 as part of my toolkit for this. Perhaps the quality of reviewing Claude's content is sufficient to revoke autopatrolled, but since Sarefo won't continue to use Claude here, there's no reason to revoke autopatrolled. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood the linked discussions, I would suggest reading both threads in full. When Sarefo says I wouldn't be using claude 4 as part of my toolkit for this, they are referring to not using Claude 4, which is not the same as Claude Sonnet 4.1 (though I must note I think they made a mistake referring to the model they're using as Sonnet - I think they meant to say Claude Opus 4.1, but I am using Sonnet here as that's what they've said on their talk), because they feel Claude 4 is worse at this task than Claude Sonnet 4.1. They are giving an example of a model they think would be particularly unsuitable for the task, not saying that they will not continue use LLMs to create articles. Unless Sarefo wants to correct me now (and I am very happy to be corrected!), they have given no indication that they plan to stop generating articles with Claude. On the NSPECIES talk they say that they have around 500 more articles to complete the species in the existing SANSA guide and I'm happy to slow down to around 50 per day. Again, I am happy to be corrected if Sarefo intends to create these pages manually and/or seek WP:MASSCREATE permission, but I do not see any evidence that that is the case. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 03:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
hi! trying to clarify as much as I can, if anything unclear let me know.
some context. I'm a biologist (Masters' in genetics/bioinformatics, but big fan of biodiversity, especially spiders). I built the framework for wikipedia's spider section (WikiProject Spiders, doesn't seem very active nowadays) around 2006, using mostly scripting. I've been very active on iNaturalist the past decade or so (my user name is portioid there, if you're interested). I recently realized that Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (ADS), SA's most prominent arachnologist, uploaded thousands of the late Peter Webb's high-quality spider photos to iNaturalist under an open license, and also creates quite good guides for all the spider families in the area. So I'm bringing these together to build the SA spider section on wikipedia. these are photos of wild specimens that were then caught and dissected, meaning that we'll have scientifically determined high-quality photos of about 500 species, which is awesome. the spider guides are of rather good quality IMO, and my personal assessment was that these are essentially a collection of pre-written short wikipedia starter pages already that just need to be transferred. I call it Project Spider Webb. if you think it would make sense to create a project page for it, let me know.
to achieve this, I'm using a combination of manual work, python scripting and claude sonnet 4 (now 4.5). at the moment, my sources are WSC (world spider catalog, world authority on spider systematics) and ADS' guides. I have been using claude extensively for coding for the last year or so, so am generally aware of its strengths and weaknesses. the use of claude in this project is mostly to make existing passages flow better, as the original guides are sometimes written in shorthand. I proofread everything it outputs, and tweak it to a varying extent.
I don't fully understand in what way you're both misreading my earlier posts;), but I'm referring to claude sonnet 4 (now 4.5). I mistyped when I mentioned sonnet 4.1, there's no such thing (I was working with claude opus 4.1 for programming earlier, hence the mixup). 4.5 is very new (it came out today) and allegedly markedly better, but I will have to test this more to have details, especially regarding fabulations. as I mentioned elsewhere, I'm using claude essentially as a glorified text processor as part of my pipeline. it is my impression that this is legitimate under wikipedia's current guidelines.
I am currently in the process of mass uploading the photos to Commons, and creating categories etc. Once that is done, I intend to complete adding SA spider species pages. as mentioned, there are a few hundred left I think.
I was made aware of some mistakes that slipped in, for which I am very thankful. this showed that I did not check the output as closely as I thought I had. at some point, I had gotten a bit careless in the rush of things. I improved parts of my scripts (including the part where claude is involved), and how I proofread the pages. I have been closely reading through hundreds of these since, and found very few mistakes. these mostly happen with claude 4 when it is expecting some input, but I did not give that input.
some people have worried about the short-term frequency of article uploading ("every two minutes", etc.). this may be an artifact of batch uploading previously generated works. I sometimes generate and proofread a batch of articles, then upload them in one go. so the upload rate is not necessarily an indication of creation speed. also, some of the shorter pages are much easier and hence faster to check than more complicated ones. this eg. depends on which spider family I'm currently working on.
my personal suggestion would be to let me finish this project using my current workflow, adding the remaining pages. then I will revisit the earlier additions to make sure they are up to the standard of the later ones. SA spiders are not a highly visited topic (yet!) I assume, so there should be no immediate rush I guess;) any help is encouraged and appreciated, but not required. I'm happy for anyone joining in with the effort, but am equally happy to bring this to a level everyone can live with by myself.
I am comparing my output with average content on wikipedia, which as you all know is a mixed bag. I think it's better than much content that nobody has contested for years, but not as great as that of some of the great contributors here. I can live with that. it's a first version, and wikipedia is meant to be iterated on. I've experienced in the last week(s) that my content is held to a much higher standard of perfection, which I find only partly justified (because of the amount).
most of the feedback I was given did not actually involve problems resulting from LLM use. again, my suggestion would be to extend to me a certain level of trust that I'm trying to build something of value here. I'm not some random jerk poisoning the waters with hallucinated AI slop.
pain points I'm personally aware of with my past output:
half-sentence additions here and there that while not factually wrong, are not actually explicitly mentioned in the source. this happens much less in newer content, but I don't think it's a drastic problem in earlier content either. after being made aware of two of these, and very thoroughly checking around a hundred articles, I spotted around two of these in my output at the time.
due to the way claude internally processes the content I feed it (WSC + respective ADS guide), it sometimes will give the wrong reference (WSC for ADS content or vice versa). when proofreading, I did not thoroughly check for this. that's not great, but hopefully tolerable. now that I'm aware of it, I'm keeping an eye on it.
regarding fabulations, I can't fully vouch for the earliest articles I created, and hence will revisit them in the coming weeks. there might be a phase where my diligence waned for a bit after initial scrutiny, until I was made aware of some flaws I had overlooked. I don't fully remember when I started using claude. I started doing this manually, and at some point tried claude sonnet 4, and found it to be a valuable tool for part of the creation process.
to summarize. my plan:
finish adding pages using ADS' spider guides content (cc-by)
start adding Peter Webb's photos
revisit earlier pages in this project, to weed out beginner's problems that probably exist in these
take a good rest, because this project is amazing but also exhausting. I have no plans on adding any other mass content to wikipedia for the foreseeable future. I'll be updating WSC data from time to time (using python scripting).
thanks for taking the time, and for keeping this friendly and factual! as I mentioned in the other thread, we all have essentially the same goal, and I'm confident we can find a path to there that brings a smile on all of our faces. Sarefo (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Expectations around mass creation were not created due to the need to respond to "random jerk"s, they were created due to good faith editors moving too fast and too far and creating cleanup work for others. For example, you are mass-uploading images on Commons calling the author Peter Webb and put in the category "Photos by Peter Webb". However the author of every one of a random sample of your 50 most recent uploads appears based on the source website to be someone called Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (eg). This is technically a violation of the licence, and while it can be fixed it's a lot of cleanup. CMD (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
They explained in their comment where these images were from... jp×g🗯️ 01:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
On the subject of accusing people of typing without reading, here is what they said in the second paragraph of their comment:
I recently realized that Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (ADS), SA's most prominent arachnologist, uploaded thousands of the late Peter Webb's high-quality spider photos to iNaturalist under an open license, and also creates quite good guides for all the spider families in the area.
Not sure I raised typing without reading, but these claims do need evidencing on Commons. CMD (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarifications (you has me more than a bit confused with Sonnet 4.1, but I figured it was a safe bet you meant either Opus 4.1 or Sonnet 4.5, and not some secret Claude version I was unaware of), though I must ask again that you clarify the scope of your use of automation in regards to which/how many articles are affected, as these will need substantial clean-up if they resemble your recently created articles.
I don't necessarily have a problem with you using automation in this process but, while I can tell you are acting in good faith, creating such a large volume of articles with a LLM without disclosing this and without going through the normal page review process seems like a serious lapse of judgement. Mass-created articles and articles generated by LLMs are two categories of article that require extra scrutiny, not less than is expected for the average article by an extended confirmed user, and you've combined these two methods at higher risk of error into a single project while entirely bypassing the safety net of new page patrol. You've started a large-scale automated article creation process without disclosing the level of automation or putting any checks and balances in place besides your own personal review, which is not enough when producing such large amounts of content. It seems like the only reason the errors in these articles have come to light is because @Novedevo noticed Claude saying "here's the article you requested" and flagged it on your talk page, which led other users to investigate the rest of your articles for further errors. I am certainly seeing issues that others have not flagged that need addressing and seem to be common across the board with your recent articles.
I appreciate that you've paused creating new articles since becoming involved in this discussion and would kindly request you continuing to keep this on hold for the moment until this is resolved. This is a project with a lofty goal but I am really deeply disappointed by the failure to disclose the use of automation so other editors can ensure the quality of these articles, and I maintain that you have not held to the high standards expected from an experienced autopatrolled user. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 06:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
this wasn't really a problem when I auto-created lots of articles in 2006 IIRC. I've been working on iNaturalist for the last years, and I was generally met with a wall of silence on its forum when trying to talk about projects, so that was the mindset I was in. build this, make sure it's of good quality. as I mentioned earlier, should I create a project page for this, so we can discuss improvements in a central place? or any other suggestions to centralize this? Sarefo (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
A lot of things have changed in Wikipedia since 2006. I used a lot of really poor sources then, and created some very iffy articles. We have tightened up our standards for sources, articles, and the pace of creating articles since then. My personal advice is to slow down the rate of creating new articles and spend more time expanding each article before taking it to main space. Even better, spend part of your time expanding existing stubs. I spend as much time on major expansions of existing articles as I do on creating articles. Donald Albury 22:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
We can assume good faith on the part of the relevant editor here. I don't think the details of how LLMs were used in this case are particularly relevant. The crux of the issue is that the autopatrolled right is completely unnecessary for article creation. It has no impact whatsoever on this editor's capacity to create more articles, and one hopes he will continue to do so. The purpose of autopatrolled is to remove works created by trusted editors from the NPP log, so as to reduce the overall burden on new page patrollers. In a case where an editor has used, and plans to continue to use LLMs for article creation, and where numerous errors have been identified in his past creations, it does not make any sense to treat that editor as trusted, and allow him to continue to retain the autopatrolled right. For the encyclopaedia, it is imperative that a second pair of eyes be drawn to any content resulting from LLM-based editing before it is indexed. In fact, this benefits the editor, because the patrollers may pick up on phenomena he did not detect. Given this, I must support the stripping of this editor's autopatrolled right, with no prejudice against his past and continued contributions to the encyclopaedia. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎ 06:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
[triple edit conflict] Sarefo, as far as mass addition — just slow down and add some of these articles more gradually, like one or two per day, and people won't object to the quantity. (Imagine that you were doing all the work manually, and upload them at this rate.) Obviously once they're written, it won't take much work at all; just log in for a couple minutes and copy/paste from your offline saved information. Or better yet, mass-create them in userspace (User:Sarefo/Spider species 1, User:Sarefo/Spider species 2, etc.), wait a while, and move them into mainspace at your convenience. As far as files — as Chipmunkdavis notes, the linked image does need to be attributed to "Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman", even if it were a Webb creation, because the source specifies Dippenaar-Schoeman as the required attribution. Be sure that you're complying with the source when attributing copyrighted-but-freely-licenced images. If you have good reason to say that they're Webb creations, you can note this in the file description page, and you can still use the Webb category.
As far as the bulk of the content — since you're reviewing and modifying the AI-generated text, it's not a fundamental problem, but if your output contains errors, yes this will be a problem. I don't want to deter you from this work, but supplying erroneous information is disruptive, so you need to be careful not to disrupt things; you've been around here long enough that you know that people get sanctions of various sorts if they keep disrupting things. And this applies both to the text of the article ("Spider A lives in America" when it really lives in Europe) and to the citations (citing a statement to a source that doesn't say so), so yes be careful to keep a very close eye on it.
Finally, curious — what are SA spiders? Spiders that live in South Australia? Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
South Africa, I believe Sarefo is in contact with some of the researchers and managed to secure image release in a compatible licence. CMD (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
the observations on iNaturalist also say these are observations and photos by Peter Webb, so I don't think there will a problem here?
any work that is actually done will contain errors. the point is to minimize errors as much as possible. I'm doing this. I think the output is of pretty good quality. I don't think holding me to a 100% perfection standard is fair. I'm also happy to run a bot over this set of articles, eg. removing the status information (IUCN etc.) which I scripted in, but ethmo told me recently under wrong assumptions. I really don't think I'll be putting any unnecessary burden on others.
South African spiders:) Peter Webb was a colleague of Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, SA's most prominent spider scientist. he died recently, so she spoke with the family, and they granted open rights to make these fantastic photos accessible. she uploaded most of them to iNaturalist, that's how I noticed it. Sarefo (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
This is just about my exact sentiment, but you put it into words much better than I did! I don't want Sarefo to stop creating articles, but this is not an appropriate use of the autopatrolled right. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 06:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
It is worth noting that, since last year, autopatrollers can unpatrol their own creations. I wrote the current rough guidance on this—Use cases for this include where most of the page's content was written by someone else who is not autopatrolled, where the user has a conflict of interest, or where the user is unfamiliar with the topic area or otherwise thinks the page would benefit from an outside review—and I think it would make sense to add "where the page's creation involved generative AI" to that list. @Sarefo: Would you be willing to self-unpatrol any AI-created articles you publish in the future? There should be a button in the tools menu saying "Add to the New Pages Feed". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC), ed. 10:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The link is called "Mark this page as unreviewed" but as Tamzin says, this does exist as a feature since last year. I've attached screenshots of how it should look for folks with autopatrolled. This is how the link looks like in Vector22which then opens up this dialogSohom (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
With all respect, offering that option does not seem appropriate to me. I want these articles to be generated, and I'm sure Sarefo has the best intentions (and good material). However, what the autopatrolled right comes down to in the final analysis is "does the community think this user has sufficient judgement to not require oversight". I'd suggest that the flaws discussed so far, and the discussion had here, show that this judgement isn't quite there. Jank autopatrolled. It's not a collectible hat, and this only places them back on the same level as the vast majority of valued and productive users. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Speaking as a patroller, I'm not entirely sure whether it would do anyone any good for NPP to be flooded with articles about spiders: NPP is backlogged enough as it is. It therefore doesn't strike me as a very good idea either to revoke autopatrolled or to ask Sarefo to tag the articles as unpatrolled. In my view, if editors are going to create huge numbers of semi-automated articles, this should be on the understanding that they will check them rigorously for themselves and not publish them in mainspace until after they are properly checked: I mean, I'm not sure if any editor should be mass-creating articles at all unless they are autopatrolled and check their articles in the thorough manner that that user right presupposes.
So I wonder whether it might be better to ask Sarefo to create these articles in draftspace and move them to mainspace only after the whole process of creating and checking has been completed. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm also putting a lot of personal effort into it. My fingers hurt. I'm seeing spiders the moment I close my eyes. I'm essentially reduced to working on this and sleeping for the last weeks.
As there is no time limit on getting every spider in South Africa added to the encyclopedia, I think it would be better all around for them to slow down. A problem with these kinds of mass creations (LLM, scripted, or human written) is the break in feedback. One missed error becomes 50 missed errors when you are publishing 50 articles at once, and one is much more likely to miss errors when working flat-out every day. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk 18:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm also fine with this. As I keep mentioning, while I highly appreciate any input on how to improve this dataset, I'm also very happy to work on it by myself to bring it up to a level everybody is happy with. I don't want to put a burden on anyone.
I also think that the recent pages are totally good enough to stay in mainspace while I improve on them.
You'll also have to consider that I have a life outside of this project (soon, hopefully). I still think if you let me do this my way, while I incorporate input I get to improve, is the best way to go for everyone. Everyone does things differently. In the end, it's the result that counts. Sarefo (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with this btw, the way you explain it:) Sarefo (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
If I am reading correctly, they aren't hooking the model directly up to the editing box, they are using it as part of a workflow which they manually review prior to posting any articles. jp×g🗯️ 01:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
that is correct. it is also correct that I improved my workflow in the process of doing this, also due to feedback from here. that's why I want to revisit older articles once I'm finished to clean up what I might have missed. again, as it's not a highly frequented area anyway, I think the easiest thing would be to just let me wrap this up in mainspace and clean up whatever might be necessary as the next step. I don't think there is anything dramatic there. here and there a sentence that while not wrong is not written as such in the source. very rarely some fabrications I might have missed. it took me a few days to adapt from reviewing the model's coding output to using it for text processing. Sarefo (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Sarefo came to my attention while following up on reports at CopyPatrol. Substantial portions of the text of articles created matched texts at the websites discussed above, which triggered a red flag. The text was cited, and IIRC, Sarefo felt that was sufficient, not realizing that an attribution template was required. Sarefo accepted this observation, immediately modified their workflow, and subsequent articles created included the proper attribution. I backfilled the attribution on approximately 250 articles. While understanding that my focus was on the copyright issues, I did peruse some of the content, and what I looked at seemed fine. It's my understanding that Sarefo is not using an LLM create content ab initio, but mainly for organization of material already created. I'm aware that the community has serious concerns about the use of LLM's, but this strikes me as a perfectly acceptable use case.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no mechanical distinction between organizing content and creating content ab initio, all an llm does is absorb the prompts it is given into its mathematical formulas and produces an output that it converts into words. You get a sliding scale of 'ab initio' content depending on how controlled the prompts are, but the underlying mechanism is the same and reorganization can (and in this case has) produce 'hallucinations'. CMD (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
With all due respect, I understand how Sarefo is creating their articles. This is a discussion about whether or not this is an appropriate use of the autopatrolled user right, not about what is and is not acceptable LLM use. Sarefo is not violating any policies by using Claude to generate articles and I am not trying to stop them from doing so, only raising my concerns about oversight because I believe it will improve the quality of their articles. Not to single you out in replying to your comment, Sphilbrick, (yours is just the latest and makes the most sense to reply to) but it feels like about half of the people who've commented on this discussion so far have done so not to address my actual concern but to instead have a completely separate discussion about the ethics of LLM use, as if talking past me. Absolutely no offence intended, but I would desperately like to steer this discussion back to the specific topic of whether or not large numbers of articles mass-created by LLMs should be autopatrolled. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 10:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I haven't historically been active in either granting or removing autopatrolled rights, so I decided to re-review Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Much of the content was straightforward but I was somewhat surprised to see so little content in guidelines for revocation. It's short so I will repeat the content in full:
If an autopatrolled user hasn't edited for three or more years, their right may be revoked.
I don't view this as exhaustive — if an editor is granted the right and generates some new articles that, in retrospect, ought to have been subject to review, it may be appropriate to remove the right.
If the discussion is not about the use of LLM, then I would see the decision turning on whether this editor has recently created multiple examples of articles that would've been flagged by new page patrollers as problematic. I am aware that there may have been some examples early in the process but how many examples can you provide from, say, the last month? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply, real life has been very busy lately. Yes, I also noticed that the guidelines for revocation were severely lacking... This is something I would really like to see expanded. I am autopatrolled, and it's a privilege that I work hard to show that I deserve and will use with responsibility - if I were to stop being so diligent, it's only right that I should not be afforded such a privilege. We need to develop a guideline that explains what behaviour is and is not acceptable for autopatrolled users. I note that the admins responding to requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled are quite thorough in vetting users requesting the right, and I think that kind of thorough scrutiny should continue throughout a user's editing career.
RE: examples of issues - I must quickly point out that when you say there may have been some examples early in the process but how many examples can you provide from, say, the last month?, the earliest issue I'm aware of being flagged was by @Novodevo on Sarefo's talk page on 21 September, so well within the last month (not sure when Sarefo began creating these articles). A non-exhaustive list of issues I and others have noticed:
Including Claude's response to the prompt ("Here's a short distribution section for the genus *Amaurobioides* article:") at Amaurobioides (flagged in user talk discussion by Novodevo)
The article for Apochinomma deceptum (the valid name of the species) was referred to by the incorrectly formed basionym Apochinomma decepta within the article body despite being located at the correct article name - this is an error stemming from prompting Claude to draw primarily from a source which used the incorrect name (flagged in user talk discussion by @Jlwoodwa)
Also on the article for Apochinomma deceptum, Claude referred to two ant genera as species, and refers to a genus "Streblognatha", which does not exist (I believe it to be a misspelling of Streblognathus) - these may be a result of Claude closely paraphrasing the source text, however, I cannot check this as it absolutely refuses to load in my browser and consistently fails to download - if someone can confirm/disprove this I would appreciate it. The article also seemed to claim that the species was present in three particular protected areas (Ndumo Game Reserve, Tembe Elephant Park, and Kruger National Park) which are not actually stated in the source text and appear to have been mere guesses by Claude (incorrect use of the word species and hallucinated park occurrences flagged in user talk discussion by @Chipmunkdavis and Sarefo respectively, possible misspelling noticed by myself just now)
Almost all articles incorrectly use the |status= parameter in the Speciesbox - this is something I have manually fixed on around 40 pages and notified Sarefo about. This comes in two forms or error: articles that incorrectly assign a IUCN conservation status in the Speciesbox when the species in question has not actually been assessed for the Red List, and articles that incorrectly assign a Red List of South African Plants status to spider species. This is an issue arising from the authors of the text Claude is primarily drawing from assigning statuses based on similar criteria to the Red List, but which are not the same as an actual assessment - South Africa has its own special system for this which is similar to but distinct from the IUCN Red List (flagged in user talk discussion by Chipmunkdavis - this was something that immediately stood out to me as a frequent user of the |status= param who knows about SANBI's weird independent system)
Some articles make reasonable but unsourced claims about the etymology of specific epithets, eg. Olios lacticolor claiming that The species name lacticolor derives from Latin, meaning "milk-colored" but providing no source - this seems to just be the LLM just making an assumption rather than drawing from a source. In the example of O. lacticolor, I checked all three sources in the article to make sure it wasn't just a failure to correctly attribute the information, but no, none of them give an etymology (noticed by myself while cleaning up some of these articles, I have flagged the ones I saw as needing citation)
This is relatively minor compared to factual inaccuracies, but many articles have general issues with formatting, prose quality, and not following WP:MOS. I think many articles would benefit from a cleanup template like Template:Tone or Template:Copyedit. A near universal example of this is that common nouns are capitalised - this seems to stem directly from the primary source the LLM is drawing from also using this sort of weird capitalisation (eg. Savannah and Thicket biomes in Olios lacticolor). Another very common example is that sentences discussing taxonomy attempt to attribute the description of a species to an author, but only provide a last name (eg. Olios zulu was described by Simon in 1880 in Olios zulu - I know which Simon this is referring to because I'm a nerd - it's the French scientist Eugène Simon, who had a huge impact on arachnology - but to an average reader this is obviously not helpful). The author is usually linked in the |authority= param in the Speciesbox, but how many readers will know to look for that?
These are just what I'm aware of thanks to the work of others and my own viewing of around 50 of the LLM-generated articles, but I think they are enough to illustrate that these articles suffer from a pattern of poor quality control owing to the inherent flaws of LLMs, Sarefo only being a single person not able to catch every possible issue, and the lack of any further oversight from the review process to catch the issues slipping through. FOARP has also raised the issue of WP:MASSCREATE below which I think is highly relevant here. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 02:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
If we are discussing Apochinomma deceptum, a significant example was the sentence "Adult females have been collected during February, May, and November, while males were collected in April, July, and October" was apparently completely made up from nothing (ie. not even a mangling of the source). This was only found after I spent substantial time checking through the article. CMD (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I saw that in the talk page discussion but forgot to mention it as I was writing my previous comment - cheers for catching that. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 07:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Revoke autopatrolled
Revoke autopatrolled until the Sarefo can show again that they should be entitled to have it - Using LLM-generated text without sufficient review is a perfectly good reason to do this. Even if done in good faith, this is a WP:CIR issue. I take the point about NPP being flooded, but in that case the author needs to slow down and do more checking, and NPP reviewers can flag that up to them if they are finding a lot of spider articles jamming the feed. Sarefo also needs to go through WP:MASSCREATE for mass-creation of articles using automated or semi-automated tools (which is what using an LLM is). FOARP (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Given the concerns raised here, and especially the overview by Ethmostigmus above, I have removed Sarefo's autopatrolled status. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Heads up for "Gemini in Chrome"
I just got a pop-up asking me to enable Gemini in Chrome. According to the pop-up, Your page content is shared for more relevant answers. When you use this feature, page content and URLs are sent to Google. I don't know exactly what the means, but it sounds like if I just view a page, the content of that page will be snarfed. This is of particular concern to admins, since we often view material which is private such as deleted or oversighted revisions. Various entities (arbcom, ombuds, U4C, checkusers, etc) maintain their own private wikis which contain highly confidential data. VRTS agents have access to private data. A plain reading of the feature description would lead me to believe that any or all of these will be subject to being ingested by Gemini simply by viewing a page. A frightening concept.
I strongly urge people to not enable this on their browsers. I tend not to be an alarmist about security, but his may be the thing that finally gets me to switch over to Firefox. RoySmith(talk) 22:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
You're going to be very disappointed when you find out how much useless AI crap you need to turn off on Firefox too! REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk 22:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The last time I had done more research into this, Firefox's (ill-conceived as they are) "AI" integrations have been local device only and their off-device stuff required much more than just agreeing to a pop-up. Skynxnex (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything in Safari yet; Apple is so behind in the AI race I doubt they'll do something similar anytime soon. Toadspike[Talk] 09:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Not only are Apple behind in the AI race (or deliberately taking things slowly), they have their whole marketing schtick about being comparatively better for privacy, so automatically uploading web content to chatbot servers would cause some outrage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Deleting request for Andrew Lowe (scientist) and Andrew Lowe (astronomer)
double redirect removed, don't see any clear reason to remove the redirects themselves Mfield (Oi!) 06:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello.... Please anyone here for delete Andrew Lowe (scientist) and Andrew Lowe (astronomer) because there are fulfilling the WP:G6 criterias. Thanks. 158.140.164.28 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Wow tha is a double redirect! I don't think either should be deleted but the one with the (scientist) disambiguator needs to not point to the one with (astronomer) 212.70.111.8 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the double redirect Mfield (Oi!) 06:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock request for KaijuEditor (fka God's Godzilla)
Unblocked by Anome -- Sohom (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. I was in a mood to make Wikipedia, back then, an interconnected place, by linking related articles or videos (of which some are still up too this day: Aftermath (2010 TV series)), without realizing the dumb implications, which I took as personal attack, which in hindsight is dumb.
2. I had a notion of thinking, I was making Wikipedia more interconnected to itself, which I made useless edit links. I was and am wrong. As my edit debacle in Native American genocide notes. (I dropped my edit war, when we reached a favorable compromise)
3. I’ve learned to leave / back off from overzealous liking & to be careful with what I link, and decided to switch to formatting, and allow other more experienced editors, do the actual proper writing. KaijuEditor (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
While it would have been better to get a direct admission of sockpuppetry in the unblock request, I'm inclined to look past that given that they never made any effort to hide being a sockpuppet account, and that it's been nearly a decade since the initial incident. While I do take some pause at the recent edit warring, I think this unblock request does a good job of reflecting on past edits, and would thus support unblocking. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd also support unblocking. It's been almost 10 years now, people change, and they seem to be sincere. They can always be imediately reblocked if they misbehave. —The Anome (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblocking as well, per above. -- Sohom (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Support If the admins who have interacted with this editor in the past are arguing to give them more ROPE, I'll support their reasoning as well. LizRead!Talk! 21:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I did the checkuserblock (Special:Block/God's_Godzilla), and I'm fine with this provided they keep their promise to edit constructively in good faith in future. In particular, they should pick a single account and stick to it; further sockpuppeting is not acceptable. I'll unblock them now. KaijuEditor: welcome back to Wikipedia. —The Anome (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am categorically opposed to TBANs from the entire BLP topic area; they're always either overkill (as in a narrower sanction would suffice) or underkill (as in the user should be sitebanned). For that reason, my baseline here is that I'd support a step-down restriction to "biographical material about living persons that Stuartyeates has any degree of personal connection to", which would cover the scenario that led to this TBAN's imposition. But that's mostly a procedural view, matching what I would say if the AN/I thread were to happen today. On the merits, I lean opposed to any lifting beyond that, because this appeal does not address the edits that led to the ban. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
While I agree with Tamzin in spirit, I think it would be difficult to manage narrowing the scope to people with whom appellant has a conflict of interest. How would we know? Having said that, perhaps @Stuartyeates: can more fully address the edits that led to the topic ban.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
In terms of the edits that lead to the TBAN: the last time I checked (immediately prior to my previous appeal), none of the articles I created had been deleted, the content of the edits were still on en.wiki supported by the same sources, although some had been moved to different pages, particularly a consolidation to Listener letter on science from BLPs, including newly minted ones. Creating a page on the issue was probably what I should have done to start off with, rather than repeating similar material on several BLPs. The social media posts which most of the original discussion centred on are long gone, since I'm no longer on twitter. I'm more careful about the perception of off wiki coordination, for example the draft I helped with at Draft:Blacksky (which I helped with based on social media mentions); I won't be making any decisions about promoting that to mainspace. I'm also being more selective about the sources I use in BLPs (more aggressively avoiding potentially ethnically partisan sources) and double-sourcing some claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
We would know if Stuartyeates decided to disclose them. Or we can look at the persons they got banned over, note their similar qualities, and decrease the topic ban accordingly 178.246.132.152 (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
If we were to decide that Tamzin's proposed narrowing is unenforceable but that narrowing the TBAN would be desirable in principle, would living New Zealand academics be a workable scope? It's easier for editors other than Stuart himself to identify the boundaries of, and seems to cover all of the articles in the precipitating incident. If that's too narrow, then we could have either living New Zealanders or living academics. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, these people are living New Zealand academics, but all of the controversy is related to racism / ethnicity, academia is just where these people got their public platform. If I had written it, Listener letter on science would 100% have been added to Category:racism in New Zealand. IMHO any redefinition of the TBAN should be in that direction. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Appeal I've looked over the background material and far too much of it depends on people making inferences to off-wiki statements of opinion for my taste. My first preference would be to entirely lift the tban but I would also support tightening its scope if that's out of the question. Frankly nobody should be editing articles about people with whom they have a personal connection anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose lifting. Just above Stuartyeates writes If I had written it, Listener letter on science would 100% have been added to Category:racism in New Zealand. This indicates a failure to understand the problems that led to the sanction in the first place. That article contains nothing justifying addition to such a category except for a quote from a self-published blog post by Tina Ngata, and even that claim of racism receives pushback from other, stronger sources elsewhere in the article. This text was copied over from the boilerplate he added to individual BLPs that got him in trouble in the first place (e.g. ). Stuartyeates should know that this is a violation of WP:BLPSPS and that the category he supports adding is a violation of WP:POVCAT and BLP.
For those unaware, the Listener letter controversy is over whether ethnic 'traditional knowledge' should be of equal status with science. There appears to have been a large political push for this in New Zealand but this idea is quite controversial internationally. The idea that traditional knowledge is equal to science led to the introduction of the debunked pseudoscientific concept of vitalism into New Zealand's chemistry curriculum, later largely removed thankfully after the controversy arose . There are serious WP:FRINGE concerns around this topic and I see no recognition of how wrong it is tar people as racist for questioning things like vitalism; indeed he just said above he would still label the controversy as about racism. Crossroads-talk- 20:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
That article contains nothing justifying addition to such a category except for a quote from a self-published blog post by Tina Ngata, ...? The article (which was created after I stopped editing in this area) contains two mentions of racism in direct quotes and one use of the word outside quotes. There are many other uses in a wide variety of related sources, which I can look up if you would like me to. Tina Ngata has previously held a fixed-term anti-racism role at a New Zealand university, this is their field of expertise. I 100% agree that there are issues with WP:FRINGE here. I disagree with the above characterisation of Mātauranga Māori. As an encyclopedia and tertiary source it's not up to us to 'tar' people for their views, it's up to us to report what reliable independent third party sources say on the matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Those other uses of the word are from sources talking about science's alleged "ongoing role in perpetuating scientific racism" and defending the authors of the Listener letter from accusations of racism. Neither support the claim that the Listener letter is itself an instance of racism, and even if there were reliable sources with that as an attributed POV, that category is still a violation of POVCAT and BLP. Defending the use of Ngata's blog post as a source (the only source with the inflammatory accusation of racism) doesn't bode well either. Crossroads-talk- 01:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. The comments above demonstrate that Stuartyeates has not learned from the topic ban. Also WP:DEFINING may be an interesting read. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Question for administrators
First, this is not an issue for AN. Second, Bhuyquang1 is warned for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you think that the "free" part of "free content" is as in "free speech" and not as in "free beer"? I see two users sharing the same assumption, in separaterollbacks, that free content is not libre, but gratis. Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Neither. "Free content" refers to the ability to use, reuse, and distribute the content minimal legal or technological restriction. It doesn't mean free of cost ("free beer"), but it also doesn't mean freedom of expression ("free speech"). That said, the "free" part in both "free content" and "free speech" is more similar, both being more libre rather than the gratis of "free beer". But that doesn't mean "free content" and "free speech" are the same, and trying to describe them that way because of the shared libre concept would be misleading. Anomie⚔ 14:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RFC: Should we equalize/remove the difference in autoconfirmed time between non-Tor and Tor users
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear colleagues,
I’d like to raise a procedural concern about the handling of my SPI request related to User:Incall, which was closed by a CheckUser.
The case was closed with this note:
"Closing without action. There is absolutely no way that Incall and 10gok are related. The comparison is so unlikely that I am declining to investigate any of the others. Please do not use ChatGPT to write SPI reports."
I think that the way the request was handled may not have followed the standard procedure under WP:SPI and WP:CHECKUSER.
No CheckUser review was performed — the decision was made solely on a behavioural assessment, even though WP:CHECKUSER allows declines only when there is clearly insufficient behavioural evidence.
I was specifically asked by CoffeeCrumbs to provide more diffs, but before I could add them, the SPI page was protected. WP:SPI says editors should have a fair opportunity to provide evidence before a case is closed.
The phrasing “absolutely no way” comes across as a personal judgment rather than a procedural determination.
I understand that CheckUsers have to make quick calls, but in this case, it appears the process may have skipped a few expected steps.
I would appreciate if could take a look and confirm whether this closure was consistent with established SPI procedures.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
(ps: They’ll likely do everything they can to discredit what I’ve said, even though Incall’s own attacks only reinforce the need for checking him) Gocturk (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
A boomerang might arrive 176.227.4.196 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
To begin with, you don't know whether CU review was performed, or any behavioural review in addition to your evidence. As for your quote, it both does not exist on your linked page, and is plainly wrong. As written in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, "Ultimate discretion to use or not use the tool in any matter... remains solely with individual CheckUsers." A policy-violating check is not excused by "someone asked me to".
SPI clerks and CheckUsers have plenary power over WP:SPI. As mentioned in the log, asilvering protected the page to rein in the arguing between yourself and the reportee. Personally I would have given both of you final warnings, but asilvering is well within their right.
That's subjective. I didn't read it as such.
Asilvering looked at the SPI, determined there was no indication of sockpuppetry, and closed the case. I don't see anything wrong with that. I find the allegations of tagteaming in your post scriptum here and at AN/I inappropriate, as well as the aspersions against Incall. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
If I was more available to answer questions, I would have just blocked you for a week for dragging personal disputes into SPI and wasting people's time with a vendetta, but I'm not. Maybe another admin will. Right now, you are just forum shopping, and clearly your actions have become disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
And please do not use any artificial intelligence to write anything on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
That's AI output again, and it hallucinated strange alleged requirements for declining checkuser requests. This is why Gocturk had been asked multiple times, in the quoted message and on their talk page, to stop relying on AI in this way. I have now blocked them from editing, and they can probably return if they manage to write an unblock request explaining an understanding of the problem in their own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for reverting any edits made by range IPs 2402:800:620C:FC41:0:0:0:0/64
Done; not an AN matter. Rusalkii (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello... Please anyone here for revert any edits make by range IPs 2402:800:620C:FC41:0:0:0:0/64 because all of these edits are contains wrongful and unsourced information. Thanks. 158.140.164.28 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration motion regarding User:Rager7
The Arbitration Committee received a report relating to acute and long-term wikihounding and harassment by Rager7(talk·contribs) towards Knightoftheswords281(talk·contribs), which included private information as part of the contextual evidence presented.
Following the completion of an investigation into the report and the public and private evidence provided, the Committee has passed the following motion:
Subject: Persistent Original Research by User 116.49.190.96 (6+ Months)
116.49.190.96 has been persistently engaging in Original Research for over six months!
The records on their talk page, User talk:116.49.190.96, show that content was deleted due to Original Research on 09:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC) and again on 07:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC).
Following these incidents, the user has been covertly inserting Original Research into passages previously written by other users with proper sources.
Administrative intervention is now required. Otyuso23 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Otyuso23,
You haven't even been an editor for one day and you are already bringing editors up on charges at WP:AN. What previous accounts have you used to edit this project? It is very unusual behavior for a day old account to even be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please provide some context for understanding your case here because I doubt you stumbled upon this IP editor on your first day editing Wikpedia. LizRead!Talk! 23:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Sock accusations aside, I don't see any sign of AI usage. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 05:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Since I am from a foreign language Wikipedia, I am familiar with Wikipedia policies. I registered with a separate account to conceal my nationality/origin. Does the English Wikipedia have a guideline stating that users from other language Wikipedias must use the same account? Aren't different-language Wikipedias treated as separate sites? I question whether there is any reason I should have to disclose my nationality. The English Wikipedia's content influences other language Wikipedias. However, I have not cited any guidelines from a foreign-language Wikipedia on the English Wikipedia. Could you please show me which policy or guideline I might have violated? Otyuso23 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
If I have not violated any guidelines, I would like to ask the administrator the following questions:
Is the English Wikipedia considered the superordinate authority over other language Wikipedias?
Is a user from another language Wikipedia required to report their membership or activity to the English Wikipedia administrators upon joining?
Must users disclose their country of origin to English Wikipedia administrators when registering an account here?
Are users from other language Wikipedias prohibited from filing a complaint against an editor on the English Wikipedia? Otyuso23 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
User 116.49.190.96 is accessing Wikipedia from Hong Kong, not the United States. Furthermore, this is simply one non-English speaking user filing a report against another non-English speaking user. I have not filed a report against an American user. Otyuso23 (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
That is irrelevant information whether they are accessing from HK or not anyway 2A04:7F80:5D:7B50:D4D3:8FAB:33C1:E61D (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Otyuso23, what steps did you take to resolve the issue before coming here? The answers to your questions are no, no, no and no, but they seem totally irrelevant, as does any talk of Hong Kong and the United States. The US is just one country where English is spoken; others include Hong Kong and, well, England. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia guideline stating that the prerequisite steps for filing a report are restricted solely to the user who files the report. I have already provided evidence that other users took action on this matter over a six-month period. User talk:116.49.190.96Otyuso23 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
No. You have not. And any statement that starts with there is no Wikipedia guideline stating that... is obviously wikilawyering. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
"Noticeboards
If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)"(Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) 1. For the past six months, other users have already raised the exact same concern on the user's talk page. 2. Despite this, User 116.49.190.96 has never responded on their talk page. In other words, they were alerted to potential violations of the NOR policy for six months but failed to respond. Otyuso23 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
1. "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using the later stages of dispute resolution." - User 116.49.190.96 has made absolutely no response, despite having virtually the same issue raised on their talk page for six months.
2. "Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute. Taking a deep breath and sleeping on it often helps. You can always return to the discussion later, but at least you will return without an inflamed temper. You may also want to consider leaving the discussion altogether as well." - User 116.49.190.96 has repeated the same behavior for a period of six months. Otyuso23 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
The fact that this user refused to respond and repeated the same behavior for a long period of six months, despite being alerted to the issue, fully satisfies the criteria of "Discuss with the other party" and "Disengage" as stipulated in the Dispute resolution policy.
However, despite my providing evidence of this 'long period of six months,' I have been attacked with an unsubstantiated accusation of not following policy. Furthermore, I have been unfairly subjected to contradictory attacks: 1.I was attacked for acting strangely by precisely following Wikipedia policy. - @Liz 23:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC) 2.Conversely, I was subjected to the contradictory attack that I did not follow Wikipedia policy, with absolutely no evidence provided to support this claim. - @Phil Bridger
These two lines of attack are clearly contradictory. Otyuso23 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Permission to edit and create Crime Exposé with Nancy O’Dell
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, I need permission to edit and create this article because of the apostrophe over the "e". I want to make this page as I have a decent amount sources to make it. OWaunTon (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Create a draft and when it's ready it can be moved there. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay. OWaunTon (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts, I can't make it as a draft either for the same reason, do I have to remove the apostrophe completely until further notice? OWaunTon (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Just make a draft using another title and then go to WP:RM/TR. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, and I just realize, it was the apostrophe in O'Dell, that was the problem, so forget what I just said, I fixed the problem. OWaunTon (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accidental logged-out edit
Luke10.27 is thanked for his candor regarding this accidental violation. As Nyttend says, the point of sanctions is to deter future misconduct, and there was no intent to do anything wrong here, so the matter is resolved. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope the single-account restriction thing can be forgiven. It is more important that the IP address should be suppressed if the OP wants. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Luke10.27, I have undone the edit purely because of the (accidental) ban violation and removed the IP address from the history (after sillily placing it in two edit summaries; I should have suppressed first). Feel free to make the edit again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for noting this and making it obvious that you're trying to abide by your restriction. The point of bans is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not to sanction people for good-faith mistakes; if we didn't forgive this, we'd be going against WP:NOPUNISH. Nyttend (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I've re-done the edit from my account. Luke10.27 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Deleting request for Gothic chess and Capablanca chess
G6 declined, double redirect fixed on fully-protected page, nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done These do not meet the G6 criteria. The first does need fixing of a double redirect after a recent page move, which I will now go and do. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appealing my Topic Ban from project space
ALTERNATIVE APPLIED
User directed to WP:RM. Given the OP mentions they'll do that "instead", I believe this can be closed. If I'm mistaken, by all means revert. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, everyone.
I was topic banned about a year ago from project space after successfully appealing an indefinite block that was given to me at AN/I a couple of years before. Said indefinite block was a result of me going around project space (Especially AN/I) and digging around in project space. Moving articles to my own userspace in attempts to "save" material slated for deletion, going into AN/I discussions and giving my opinion where it wasn't needed, and a host of other problems. I was told that if I ever wanted to appeal that topic ban, I should do so here, and that appealing would be okay despite the topic ban as part of WP:BANEXEMPT. I don't have any intention of going back to primarily editing in project space.
However, I was recently looking for the article on the train named the San Diegan, and noticed that it automatically redirected to the city of San Diego. The train itself was at San Diegan (train). Of course, I think this would be better served by a disambiguation page or by moving the train to the "San Diegan" title and giving the train article a hatnote, but to do this, I'd need to take that redirect to RFD, and that is a project space process - something I can't really do right now.
With this in mind, I think I'd like to finally appeal that topic ban so I can start that RFD and, if I ever find myself editing more frequently, avoid getting caught up on the topic ban if I need to use project space processes again.
You would need to open an WP:RM, not an RfD, to move the train page to the base title. That doesn't require access to projectspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I see. It's been a while since I've last edited and I'll go ahead and open that RM instead. Thank you! Plutonical (Talk) 22:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not starting a discussion about the editor, so have not notified them. My question for experienced admins is whether this draft is an attack page, and thus requires deletion, or if it is a valid work in progress, requiring a more balanced view. I am unable to decide. If it is an attack page I am sure you will do what is required. If it is not, perhaps a friendly piece of guidance to the creating editor would not go amiss 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
might also qualify for G15 too. JayCubby 23:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that decided me. I was more concerned about the potential as an attack page but both weights n the scale pan made the decision. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion this is undoubtedly an attack page with woefully inadequate (mostly primary) sourcing. However, G10 requires it to be "entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and there technically are sources. So I don't know if I'm allowed to delete anyways. And even though this is undoubtedly AI, it does not meet the stricter criteria of G15. Toadspike[Talk] 07:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@JayCubby@Timtrent Which citation(s) are nonsensical? They all seem to be real. Toadspike[Talk] 07:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike I appear to have confused myself with the dual reference scheme, thus that may be removed from the G15 extra reason at your discretin. However it has all the hallmarks otherwise of AI generation. It appears to be a nasty piece, and one which might cause issues in the future if in mainspace. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
All good. Thank you for blanking the page. I've deleted it under G10 for now, though I would appreciate if more experienced admins could weigh in on whether the deletion is valid. Toadspike[Talk] 07:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike Twinkle courtesy blanks pages suggested to be attack pages, so I can't take credit for that action. I agree that this is an awkward case. For the present it is where it can do no harm. If others consider it to be worth restoring that is perfectly acceptable. If restored, might I suggest firm advice be given to the creating editor? 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike: I don't think the G10 standard was quite met, but this was probably a valid deletion under WP:BLPDELETE, which gives a fair amount of discretion to admins in cases that aren't quite G10 but close to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appealing my Topic Ban from project space
ALTERNATIVE APPLIED
User directed to WP:RM. Given the OP mentions they'll do that "instead", I believe this can be closed. If I'm mistaken, by all means revert. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, everyone.
I was topic banned about a year ago from project space after successfully appealing an indefinite block that was given to me at AN/I a couple of years before. Said indefinite block was a result of me going around project space (Especially AN/I) and digging around in project space. Moving articles to my own userspace in attempts to "save" material slated for deletion, going into AN/I discussions and giving my opinion where it wasn't needed, and a host of other problems. I was told that if I ever wanted to appeal that topic ban, I should do so here, and that appealing would be okay despite the topic ban as part of WP:BANEXEMPT. I don't have any intention of going back to primarily editing in project space.
However, I was recently looking for the article on the train named the San Diegan, and noticed that it automatically redirected to the city of San Diego. The train itself was at San Diegan (train). Of course, I think this would be better served by a disambiguation page or by moving the train to the "San Diegan" title and giving the train article a hatnote, but to do this, I'd need to take that redirect to RFD, and that is a project space process - something I can't really do right now.
With this in mind, I think I'd like to finally appeal that topic ban so I can start that RFD and, if I ever find myself editing more frequently, avoid getting caught up on the topic ban if I need to use project space processes again.
You would need to open an WP:RM, not an RfD, to move the train page to the base title. That doesn't require access to projectspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I see. It's been a while since I've last edited and I'll go ahead and open that RM instead. Thank you! Plutonical (Talk) 22:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not starting a discussion about the editor, so have not notified them. My question for experienced admins is whether this draft is an attack page, and thus requires deletion, or if it is a valid work in progress, requiring a more balanced view. I am unable to decide. If it is an attack page I am sure you will do what is required. If it is not, perhaps a friendly piece of guidance to the creating editor would not go amiss 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
might also qualify for G15 too. JayCubby 23:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that decided me. I was more concerned about the potential as an attack page but both weights n the scale pan made the decision. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion this is undoubtedly an attack page with woefully inadequate (mostly primary) sourcing. However, G10 requires it to be "entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and there technically are sources. So I don't know if I'm allowed to delete anyways. And even though this is undoubtedly AI, it does not meet the stricter criteria of G15. Toadspike[Talk] 07:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@JayCubby@Timtrent Which citation(s) are nonsensical? They all seem to be real. Toadspike[Talk] 07:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike I appear to have confused myself with the dual reference scheme, thus that may be removed from the G15 extra reason at your discretin. However it has all the hallmarks otherwise of AI generation. It appears to be a nasty piece, and one which might cause issues in the future if in mainspace. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
All good. Thank you for blanking the page. I've deleted it under G10 for now, though I would appreciate if more experienced admins could weigh in on whether the deletion is valid. Toadspike[Talk] 07:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike Twinkle courtesy blanks pages suggested to be attack pages, so I can't take credit for that action. I agree that this is an awkward case. For the present it is where it can do no harm. If others consider it to be worth restoring that is perfectly acceptable. If restored, might I suggest firm advice be given to the creating editor? 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike: I don't think the G10 standard was quite met, but this was probably a valid deletion under WP:BLPDELETE, which gives a fair amount of discretion to admins in cases that aren't quite G10 but close to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Vigar (footballer)
I am a little confused, but is this edit, a sock vote? Because a very similar IvP6 did the vote again, then that was removed from a variation of the same IvP6, , might need an admin with the right tools to check over the article. Regards. Govvy (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think so. It looks like a phone. Minehollow (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The range encompassing all three IPs is Special:Contributions/2405:6e00:628::/45. I'm guessing this is one person who voted twice and then self-reverted when they realized their error. They have previously !voted on AfDs with similarly low-quality rationales. Toadspike[Talk] 07:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
That's what I thought, the range looks like one person to me. And the IvP6 is only doing AfDs which is also suspicious to me. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
A content dispute is taking place on the article for Mahavira and within the discussion, I am seeing concerning behaviour from several editor. One editor @Pawapuri Winds has stated here() that "deadlock wont end until all Buddhist terminate editing this page indefinitely" essentially saying that he does not want anyone he deems to be a Buddhist to edit the article.
On another occasion, @Starry Pine is accusing me of being the leader of some supposed "Buddhist group" (). These types of aspersions being caste against me as well as the constant edit warring clearly show the dispute isn't going anywhere but obviously I think the gatekeeping behaviour of stopping editors they deem to be of other religions from editing needs to be looked at by admins. Ixudi (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
These two editors are deeply problematic; just scroll through Talk:Mahavira and their personal talkpages. The low point, so far: mass-reverts because they object to scholarly explanations on Mahavira's dates. Really absurd: this mass-revert diffdo not add proto Jain again after repeated explanations at Talk:Mahavira#Proto-Jain that this term is reasonably sourced, meanwhile reverting a whole lot of other stuff while ignoring Talk:Mahavira#Edits giving undue weight to one viewpoint/Arbitrary header#2, in which in detail was explained what's wrong with this mass-revert. On top of that, the gotspe to issue these warnings diff. WP:NOTHERE, both of them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
We are perceived as “problematic” only by editors who appear to be advocating a particular viewpoint. Separately, a supporter of @Joshua Jonathan (or a possible sock/meatpuppet) posted a message on the Talk:Mahavira a death threat (threatening to burn us alive).
The key content issue remains: the sources cited do not explain how Jainism is said to have evolved from “proto-Jainism,” nor do they specify how Parshva’s community differed from Mahavira’s. This question has not been answered. Unless reliable secondary sources provide that explanation, with the secondary sources themselves citing primary sources, the term should not appear in the lead. They have already put a note and I believe that is more than enough. Regarding mass revert, it is been done by Buddhist extremist accounts and not by me. I already mentioned to @Avantiputra7 on their talk page to treat each topics seperately. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Regarding mass revert, it is been done by Buddhist extremist accounts Diffs proving this or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Their own homepage and the sources they entered suggest that they are Buddhist. Nothing bad with that, I might have studied more Buddhism than them, but pov pushing is still unfair. Interesting that you are more focused on WP:ASPERSIONS than the root cause. If the inner circle didn't want our views, it would have been better that you locked the article to admin level access, would have saved our time. Favoritism will only impact the platform's credibility. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Their own homepage and the sources they entered suggest that they are Buddhist. Which does not make them "extemist". We do not bar people from editing based on their religion. You need to strike your aspersions or face sanctions for them. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
You continue to deviate from the main topic. Therefore, no point for me continue playing a fixed match. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I wanted you to please look once at the Mahavira article's revision history. this 3 users -@Joshua Jonathan, @Ixudi, and @Avantiputra7 have been repeatedly adding only the Buddhist perspective to the page and citing only one scholar, “Dundas.” However, the Jain community does not agree with this view - they believe Mahavira lived between 599 BCE – 527 BCE, which is also supported by several scholars and widely accepted among Jains.
These users are also dividing content based on Digambara and Svetambara sects, while ignoring that other scholars have clearly mentioned the 599-527 BCE dates, which are more widely accepted.
Another point: these editors are adding statements like “historians believe Buddha’s dates are earlier by a century, so Mahavira’s dates should also be earlier.”
But I explained that such research is based on Buddha - not on Mahavira — and if they believe Buddha’s dates are earlier, that belongs on the Buddha page, not on Mahavira. Jain and other schoalr sources consistently place Mahavira in the 6th–5th century BCE, and that should be respected.
They freely add Buddhist perspectives to Mahavira, but do not allow other editors to add other religions perspectives to Buddhist-related pages. This makes the article appear non-neutral, almost like an advertisement for Buddhism. If multiple views are allowed on Mahavira, then other pages should also allow balance — not one-sided editing.
They also added that “Mahavira revived or reformed an earlier proto-Jain community.” This is again a Buddhist view. The Jain community does not accept this idea. Including it in the lead section (without attribution) creates doubts about Mahavira’s historicity, which is misleading and not neutral.
Admin, I am really frustrated — it has been more than a week of ongoing conflict over this article. It would be better if you could review and help neutralize the entire article once and for all.
Also, please check the Mahavira page’s revision history () — the user @Ixudi has removed a lot of sourced material and pushed content to one side when no one else was active to oppose. I joined later and restored those neutral, sourced edits.
If you look at their contributions, you'll see they revert or block other users good faith contributions’ neutral edits, as if they are guarding the page to keep only their perspective and These three users have edited and bent many articles in a one-sided manner, pushing only their preferred point of view.
The users (@Joshua Jonathan, @Ixudi, and @Avantiputra7) appear to have edited several articles in the same biased manner. Based on their editing patterns, it appears possible that these accounts might be sockpuppets or coordinated editors, though I’m not certain — I'm only requesting that you please take a closer look.
You can see in the diffs that when I restored neutral content, @Joshua Jonathan again restored their biased version. I warned them politely, asking: “Please don’t add non-neutral content. First gain consensus and wait for others’ opinions. Add it only when everyone agrees.”
But they again restored the same version see- . So I warned them once more that if they continue, I will have to issue a Level 4 warning. See User talk:Joshua Jonathan
Then, instead of @Joshua Jonathan, the user @Avantiputra7 entered and again restored that same non-neutral content see -— clearly protecting the earlier version. You can check this in the diffs — it seems like a coordinated attempt, possibly using multiple accounts to revert to their preferred version.
Another issue: in the Mahavira talk page, a users (through IP or VPN) has been posting “threatening to burn us alive”,etc. morever calling us Noobs See-()
This could be coming from a sock or puppet account, using IP's (likely VPNs). This behavior is highly disruptive and intimidating.
If editors are behaving like this, how are we supposed to handle such situations Admin?, please share your opinion and help resolve this issue. I also wanted to make you aware that these three accounts might be related. I’m not completely sure, but you must check it once.
Thank you for your time admin. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Already mentioned above, Talk:Mahavira#Edits giving undue weight to one viewpoint. This editor is edit-warring to push a one-sided sectarian narrative based on WP:PRIMARY sources. Regarding citing only one scholar, “Dundas.”, as explained at that talkpage-thread, multiple scholars are referenced, which this editor has repeatedly removed with a mass-revert (same behavior appears at Pārśvanātha). Regarding possibly using multiple accounts to revert to their preferred version and it appears possible that these accounts might be sockpuppets or coordinated editors: casting WP:ASPERSIONs; these two authors are themselves suspected of sockpuppetry, and have repeatedly been mentioned at SPI's. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This seems to be based on a content dispute, but, as with so many of those, it has spilt over into a behavioural one. Editors should discuss the content dispute in good faith and without regard to the religion (or none) of the people they are discussing with. If they are unable to do this then they should be rendered unable to edit Wikipedia. Any reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:SPI rather than aspersions be cast. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello Admins, I would like to bring to your attention that @Joshua Jonathan has removed long-standing, well-sourced traditional content from the Mahavira article. The removed section included references to Bheda-vijnan, a core philosophical principle of Mahavira as described in the Samayasara text — which holds a position in Jainism comparable to the "Bible in Christianity". Just as teachings attributed to Christ are central to understanding Christianity, Samayasara is fundamental to understanding Mahavira’s philosophy.
By removing this content, the user has significantly weakened the representation of Jain philosophy in the article. The article has already been weakened over time through similar removals by this user and edits that create unnecessary doubt or confusion. The content in question had been part of the stable version for a long time and was supported by reliable sources. The edit appears to have been made without discussion or consensus, and the justification provided does not align with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and verifiability.
It also appears that the removal may have been done because the user who originally expanded the section is currently blocked; however, this does not justify deleting verifiable content added in good faith.
I respectfully request administrators to review this matter. It is concerning that an experienced editor with over 10 years of activity would repeatedly remove sourced and traditionally important material, particularly on Jain-related pages. Such actions diminish the balance and integrity of the Mahavira article and affect readers’ understanding of Jain philosophy and history. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Starry Pine, Joshua Jonathan appears to have discussed their proposed changes to that section at Talk:Mahavira#Bhedvijñān. The complaint concerning this removal of content seems to still be at the level of a content dispute, which you should take up on the Mahavira talk page, rather than making an end-run assertion that they're egregiously violating NPOV here. If you are correct, you should be able to demonstrate the POV concerns on said talk page and reach a consensus. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
The administrators are not here to help with content disputes unless they turn disruptive e.g. edit wars. If you have an issue with an edit, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the concerned article. Ixudi (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Responded at user talk:Joshua Jonathan#October 2025, where SP issued a completely misplaced level 4 warning. As explained at my talkpage, and at Talk:Mahavira#Bhedvijñān, the text, the basis of which was started by blocked sock-puppet Livingstonshr diff and expanded by now-blocked editor Pawapuri Winds diff, has no relevant references; the attribution to Mahavira was unsourced, and no references were provided, despite repeated requests. Repeated searches by myself revealed that noWP:RS treat this topic, not on itself, even less in relation to Mahavira. Slow edit-warring and deeply WP:DISRUPTIVE non-collaborative editing.
There is evidence of coordinated behavior between these three users: repeated aspersions; see above, it seems like a coordinated attempt, possibly using multiple accounts, to which User:Phil Bridger already responded Any reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:SPI rather than aspersions be cast. How often is an editor allowed to repeat such accusatins, without providing evidence?
Due to continued edit-warring and disputing of content even after imposing BRD-Required restrictions, I have fully protected Mahavira for three days. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Starry Pine, your "I warned them politely" above is a misleading description of your storm of formulaic Twinkle warnings on Joshua Jonathan's page. You need to stop badgering them immediately, as it's approaching harassment. As JJ has pointed out, misplaced warnings are disruptive. Bishonen|tålk 21:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC).
Admin, I understand your concern, but please note that the warnings were not intended as harassment. If you review the Mahavira article's edit history, you'll see that the user repeatedly removed well-sourced and neutral material and restored the same disputed content multiple times, even though no consensus had been reached on the talk page.
The content being restored removes core philosophical information about Mahavira which was tradditionally very important information, I issued a higher-level warning only after repeated removals of sourced and balanced content -the user has been editing the article aggressively, and it's unclear what their goal is.
In addition, whenever I restored the sourced version, another user @Ixudi and Avantiputra7 immediately re-added the same material, which gives the impression of coordinated editing. These three users consistently support each other's edits in talk discussions and have shifted the article toward one side. If this kind of editing continues unchecked, how can such situations be handled fairly Admin?
Admin, I request that you take a closer look at the Mahavira article's revision history and talk page discussions it will help clarify why these warnings were issued. I’ll refrain from further warnings on @Joshua Jonathan talk page for the time being, but I do ask you to please review their editing pattern once. ~~
Admin, I would also like to note that once again, @Ixudi has re-added the same biased content while removing the traditional core philosophical information about Mahavira, which is a very important part of Jain tradition.
The content being added - such as terms like “proto-Jain” - represents a Buddhist perspective that Jain tradition does not accept.
We haven't yet reached consensus on these points, yet these edits keep being pushed into the article. Such wording directly affects the neutrality and historic representation of Jainism and Mahavira’s life.
Since the page was already fully protected, I request that the admins please restore the traditional sourced content that was removed, and for now, remove the “proto-Jain” line until proper consensus is achieved. These repeated edits are undermining the balance and neutrality of the article. ~~
The content being restored removes core philosophical information about Mahavira - diffs please and an explanation: which information was restored, which information was removed?;
@Ixudi has re-added the same biased content - that is, "proto-Jain," well-sourced, consensus, repeated removal by Starry Pine despite consensus;
removing the traditional core philosophical information about Mahavira, which is a very important part of Jain tradition - bedvijnana; as already explained here and in edit-summaries and at Talk:Mahavira#Bhedvijñān: not a shred of evidence that this was taught by Mahavira. Worse: no WP:RS whatsoever mentions the term;
whenever I restored the sourced version - which sourced version? Starry Pine repeatedly removed sourced information, as already explained;
which gives the impression of coordinated editing -ttanslation: Starry Pine keeps editing against consensus, ignoring WP:RS, and tries the blunt and non-coperative ways to preserve his preferred non-Encyclopedic text;
The content being added - such as terms like “proto-Jain” - represents a Buddhist perspective - what was Pawapuri Winds blocked for?
We haven't yet reached consensus on these points - yes, we have, but Starry Pine keeps warring against it.
Starry Pine is clearly WP:NOTHERE, pushing a one-sided point of view, ignoring consensus, ignoring WP:RS, and refusing to answer questions about his mass-reverts and accusations. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Warning issued on @Ixudi's talk page not on your's, because the user has been reverting content aggressively even though consensus has not yet been reached. ~ Starry Pine (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
You asked for the diff - could you please explain why you removed this content?
You mentioned that "Proto-Jain' was sourced content. While that may be true, adding such material without balance represents a one-sided view.
Per the Buddhist perspective, it may be considered "Proto-Jain,", but from the Jain perspective it is completely rejected.
Moreover, the line is highly controversial. Are you adding it intentionally despite knowing its disputed nature?
Manay sourced also claims that the Buddha is the 9th avatar of Vishnu. per Hindu prospective, that claim exists, but from the Buddhist perspective it is completely rejected.
This is precisely the kind of parallel issue we face here - the statement “Proto-Jain” is similarly controversial from the Jain side.
So how is it fair to include a one-sided or religiously sensitive claim in Jain-related articles while similar claims (like "Buddha as Vishnu’s avatar") would not be allowed on Buddhist pages? Consistency and neutrality should apply equally to all religious topics.
If you believe it is fair to add such statements like "Proto-Jain," then by the same logic, it should also be fair to add that "the Buddha is the ninth avatar of Vishnu," ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
What is it you don't understand (WP:DONTGETIT) about Bhedvijnāna: moved to Moksha (Jainism); not a shred of evidence that this was taught by Mahavira? Regarding proto-Jain versus ninth avatar: proto-Jain is a scholarly statement, not a Buddhist belief; ninth avatar is a Hindu-belief, not a scholarly statement. Wikipedia summarizes scholarly publications; it's not the place to defend religious convictions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Blocked. Starry Pine, ignoring my warning here, as well as Phil Bridger's advice that "Any reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:SPI rather than aspersions be cast", you have continued to attack Joshua Jonathan and others above with vague and general accusations (with very few diffs), and to broadly hint that three opponents of yours are coordinating or perhaps socking (instead of drawing the conclusion that several people disagree with you, and that they consequently are the ones who have consensus). I will quote a comment from Joshua Jonathan, a highly experienced editor who you could learn a lot from if you were open to it: " Wikipedia summarizes scholarly publications; it's not the place to defend religious convictions". I have blocked you for 60 hours for persistently uncollaborative editing, assumptions of bad faith, and misuse of sources (frequently removing good sources). Considering the situation, I regard this as a short block. Bishonen|tålk 10:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC).
Both Pawapuri Winds and Starry Pine have been indef'd, the latter rather conclusively after a WP:LOUTSOCKing meltdown. I believe this can be closed as "resolved, one way or another". - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
UNINVOLVED Admins needed at Sanger's Nine Theses
It would be helpful if a couple of WP:UNINVOLVED could get involved at User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses/User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses. There has been ongoing edit warring about whether or not to include certain information (namely around Yahweh and the list of the names of Arbs/CU/Crats) though consensus seems to be leaning (or perhaps even reached) towards not including either of that disputed content. There is now dispute about whether to include a box noting that this information has been removed and which links to to Sanger's external site which houses the original unmodified version. The essay itself has been full protected a couple of times by a couple of admins, and I have attempted to consolidate discussion about the disputed sections, and also to be clear that there has been no OUTING. While Sanger can't make me INVOLVED in the dispute merely by including my name on a list it would be great if a couple of admin who feel they are well positioned to help guide editors on this essay which has produced a lot of strong feelings helped editors have a productive conversation about the topics and to find consensus about disputed pieces. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
FYI, consensus on the wording of the talk page banner has been reached. NotAGenious (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems very silly for it to be fully-protected (so that its own author can't edit it) because other people were edit-warring on it. Maybe we Wikipedia editors are really so childish that this really is absolutely necessary for a few days or something, but the situation it creates an utterly goofy situation that reflects well on nobody. jp×g🗯️ 06:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Unblocked with 0RR. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Forwarding appeal on behalf of @Jack6754 for unblock request @ User talk: Jack6754. Their reformed request as suggested by @Yamla (the declining admin) and myself:
"Hello, I am requesting an unbanning from editing Wikipedia, as well as a lifting of the blocks imposed upon my account. I have reflected on my actions over the past few years and am apologetic about my previously disruptive and disrespectful behaviour. My previous account is subject to a community ban and indefinite block due to my past actions as an editor, and I regret being involved in those actions.
I accept that I have edit warred in the past and I am sorry for doing so, and will take pains to refrain from doing so in future. The article 'Black War' which I edit warred on is quite an emotional subject for me and I apologise for allowing that to cloud my judgement, an edit war was not an appropriate means to resolve the dispute of the way that dark historical topic ought to have been described by the opening lede of an article.
I am also sorry for my unproductive contributions to AfD years ago. I've matured in my approach to the site since then, and have gotten a little older. I'm confident that I am better equipped to participate as a productive article creator without getting bogged down in these kinds of procedural arguments that exist in the background.
I would like to resume contributing to the articles on this website. I love creating articles and would like to get back to being a productive editor. It has been over six months since I previously edited the site in any way, and I hope that my willingness to comply with my previous ban demonstrates that I have a newfound respect for the rules and have the ability to be a positive member of the community in the future.
I'm requesting that my account be unbanned 'standard offer' as I have complied with all these restrictions for six months. My intention upon being unbanned is to resume contributing; especially in relation to articles about Australian law, history, music, culture, and architecture.
I would be happy to have a 0RR restriction be imposed on my account as a way to show a willingness to comply with edit warring rules given that I have breached these rules in the past; especially if this restriction would give greater faith in my ability to contribute as an editor. Thank you for considering this request."
Support their unblocking since they show willingness to cooperate and put forth the effort to prove themselves. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Support with the WP:0RR restriction. I think that's enough to minimise disruption and to give them the opportunity to demonstrate they can be constructive. --Yamla (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Support with the WP:0RR restriction as a WP:LASTCHANCE (and I really mean last chance, next time is an indefinite block). They are currently topic banned from deletion discussions; being unblocked does not lift that topic ban and you are still not permitted to discuss AfDs on your talk page, even pointing out relevant policies and guidelines (which did happen previously). Before being sitewide blocked, Jack had indefinite pblocks from WP: and WT: space; those should be reinstated upon the lifting of the siteblock.
This is a laundry list of restrictions, and having reviewed Jack's previously unblock attempt I was left supremely unimpressed with the wikilawyering surrounding the standard offer and their topic ban they engaged in: see generally User talk:Jack4576#Unblock Request. (To Jack's credit, they were not the one engaging in most of the wikilawyering nor did they join the argument that they were permitted to criticize AFD nominations on their talk page.) That being said, I am persuaded that Jack now understands that they were disruptive, and that they can move forward carefully. I sincerely hope that Jack can contribute with fantastic edits and, in due time, appeal each sanction. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster, thank you for recognizing that since then perspectives have now changed and become more conducive to an unblock decision for Jack. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 09:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - I was involved in the page on at least one of the affected pages, but Jack is a content creator with some good work to show for it. I'd be inclined to accept under the Standard Offer. This support applies to lifting the block. If there are topic bans I am unaware of, I have no view on those at this time, but would remain supportive of a lift of the indef. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for reflecting on your actions and taking the time to write this out, Jack. I see you can recognise where you may have gone wrong. I'm convinced you'll contribute constructively from now onwards. jolielover♥talk 16:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for apologising and recognising your fault I support your unblock request as I beleive you have recognised your fault and are willing to contribute productively now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Support demonstrates self-awareness of their own impact; reasonable request. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've reverted the archiving of this since the unanmimous support deserves some kind of closure. However, it occurs to me that the block was not a community sanction, so it may need an admin decision to unblock rather than a community one. Anyone know for sure? But could this at least be considered by an admin. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy, thank you for reverting this. I believe It was an automatic archival and bots don't consider such things. I think there might be a template to request discussion closure. Try searching Template:close or template:closure. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 23:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy, after a bit of digging I couldn't find any template so dunno what I was thinking, but the discussion can be tagged at Wp: Closure requests. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 23:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think 174.91.82.78(talk·contribs) needs their TPA revoked. They are making disparaging personal attacks on their talk page while blocked. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 06:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Done, and an excessively large number of revdels. I assume this is a valid exception from WP:INVOLVED. In future, you don't need to revert so aggressively, would make the revdel easier. Toadspike[Talk] 07:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
It's pretty well established in Wikipedia lore (the Wikipedinomicon?) that a user mouthing off to you after you block them does not make you involved. But for what it's worth I definitely would have done the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
What the hell, it took me ages to get one piddly little "I hate asilvering", but my nominees keep getting shit like this in their first month?! -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SineBot, benign helper or closet vandal?
Is SineBot actually a net positive? Its past 500 edits goes back ten days, so about 50 edits a day. Of those 500 edits, 90 have been reverted, which is a time when it's removed the ability to rollback vandalism or unconstructive editing. Of the edits that weren't reverted there are a lot like this. There's also some deleted contribs that admins can see, and a few times SineBot's summary and edit have had to be revdelled. Maybe it's because I spend a lot of time vandal patrolling so close to the only times I see SineBot are when the bot is adding time to removing vandalism or hiding vandalism on my watchlist, but I think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
You're brave! I am kind of on the fence with SineBot. I too come across a lot of vandalism 'masking' and obviously, it creates more work when reverting.
I think it is useful for noticeboards where, new users in particularly, forget to sign comments.
I err towards it being a net negative, especially as there are templates to add signatures.
TL;DR it is really annoying for reverting vandalism. Knitsey (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if these changes would alleviate some of that:
A longer duration between the addition of a comment and the bot signing it (15 minutes? 30? WP:NORUSH), so recent changes patrollers are able to revert/rollback even if they arrive a while after the edit
Not including the unsigned user's username in the edit summary
90 reverted for 500 edits is an atrocious ratio but I'd be interested in seeing if that first change in particular makes a marked difference before binning it altogether. --tony 15:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This seems like it could address the issue? Alternatively, would it be possible to adjust rollback's functionality so that it can roll through bot edits (or SineBot in particular)? signed, Rosguilltalk 15:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Twinkle uses undo. —Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@TonySt a delay might be better? I would be interested in the opinions of non-vandal fighters as I'm aware that this is a particular annoyance for us but SineBot is helpful in other instances. Knitsey (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Is SineBot really required? As Knitesy says, there are templates for signatures. And as for vandalism—n.b. I'm not a vandal hunter, but going by what I see on my watchlist and occasionally encounter—ClueBot NG seems to do a lot more work quite a bit better. [Just checked:] Looking at CB-NGs edits, its last 500 go back less than 24 hours, and at least 300 of them are the latest (unreverted) also reversions (and of the ~20 of those that had been reverted, all had been themselves subsequently reverted by a human editor). —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
SineBot is there precisely to save humans having to dig through the history and apply said templates ourselves. Izno (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
It is certainly annoying for reverting vandalism (I have encountered issues where it creates more work), but I don't think its a net negative; the 80% of time that it doesn't create issues for vandal hunters, it makes it so another editor doesn't have to place the template on themselves, which I have found to be annoying to do. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
It's made I've 2,000,000 edits, so that's >400,000 edits that cause further disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, that's 1.6 million edits that were signed rather benignly (though of course the reverted tag is fairly new so who knows if it's more - I'd wager that a ratio of 80% is about right for non-vandalism even before its introduction). Izno (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This noticeboard has a degree of magnitude more watchers, and it's about the community's view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:BOTN is for discussion on bots and technical implementations, and this seems fixable with a few technical fixes. WP:BOTN (where folks are more accustomed with dealing with bots) also typically asks you to discuss the problem with the bot author (in this case Slackr) before bringing it to a noticeboard (unless it is a urgent matter), which does not appear to have happened here. I think you've jumped the gun here a bit by bringing it to WP:AN. Sohom (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
With my WP:BAG hat on, chances are it's better here than WP:BOTN anyway. A discussion at WP:BOTN would be more suited to whether the bot is operating within the terms of its approval and existing consensus, rather than establishing whether consensus exists for a change. OTOH, I appreciate the notification there pointing here. Anomie⚔ 19:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Before mw:Extension:DiscussionTools was implemented, the amount of unsigned comments left by users would have been much higher - if you go back to October 2021, Sinebot seems to have been averaging about 200 edits a day. And going back even further to October 2018 seems to show an average of about 250-300 edits a day. Perhaps Sinebot may not be *as* useful nowadays as it was back then, but I'm not 100% convinced that we'd be better off getting rid of the bot completely. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Regarding it making rollbacks harder, note that Twinkle's vandalism rollback button detects if it's being invoked on trusted bots – which includes SineBot – and actually rolls back the edits of the preceding user in addition to the bot edit. – SD0001 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Do we lose any desirable functionality by telling the bot not to include usernames and the edit-summary of the previous edit in its own edit-summary? Makes revdel/OS accidents far less likely. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes! If, like me, you've got a large enough watchlist that you have to disable "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" to fit more than the last few hours onto it, then having an edit by Sinebot pop up saying "(Signing comment by Some random vandal - "Something that needs to revdelled and mailed to oversight right away")" means you'll see it and revdel it and mail it to oversight right away. If it's just "(Signing comment)", and it's on a page that I only intermittently pay attention to, then I may or may not click on the history link at all, let alone promptly. —Cryptic 17:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I've joked about SineBot being a "revdel-nightmare bastard" before, but yes, it does add extra steps when dealing with talk page vandalism that requires revdel. It's not common, but when it does happen it requires extra page history hunting to ensure that SineBot's edits get included. Changing the bot's edit summary to exclude the heading and username of the signed comments would only help if the only revdellable content was the edit summary; more often, the inappropriate content is in the edit itself, meaning the edits from both the initiating user and SineBot need to be revdelled anyway, so there are no real time savings from changing the bot's edit summary.
One solution I can think of is to have the bot wait longer before signing comments. Currently, it waits one minute before signing, to give the user time to sign if they remembered after the fact. On a slow-moving talk page, waiting several more minutes isn't a big deal, and would increase the window of time for reversion and revdel should the need arises. The bot can still be configured to sign immediately on a page-by-page basis, as is currently done at User:SineBot/HighPriority. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm confused at how it helps at hiding vandalism? The edits by the vandal would still appear in recent changes, but clicking 'diff' would simply not show the latest edit that you can revert. For me, it's never been a big deal. Just go to the history and restore a version, simple as. Unless there's something here I'm missing. You can add the unsigned template manually, but let's face it, it is so much work. And how are you expected to find these unsigned comments?? jolielover♥talk 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I think people that have their watchlist set to 1) top revision only + 2) hide bot edits can't see the vandalism and therefore don't revert it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Just want to go on record in support of SineBot. I've reverted a bunch myself, in a few cases because I forgot to sign and wanted to replace SineBot's with my own. I imagine that accounts for a non trivial number of such reverts. Even if not, however, the harm of 4 unsigned posts (not knowing where one comment begins/ends, throwing off bots/scripts that parse the page, the difficulty of tracking down who said what as time passes, etc.) is greater than the additional moment it takes to revert 1 vandal. It is not something we can reasonably use human labor to do manually. Definitely not opposed to tweaking the timing, though. One thing I don't love is that SineBot includes itself in the wikitext of the responses, which invites corrections. Just add a standard signature to the comment? —Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Coming to AN without even contacting the guidance in WP:BOTISSUE is rather premature. But since we're having a discussion here, rather than at User talk:Slakr or WP:BOTN, let's at least contact the bot own @Slakr:. As for my own opinion, I find Sinebot very useful, certainly more useful than annoying. Certainly adding missing signatures in discussions, a true pain in the ass, is more valuable than the minor inconvenience of disabling rollback (instead having to undo two edits, or restore a prior version) which remains easy to do manually. A tweak to the bot's behaviour therefore seems preferable to banning it. Whether that's a longuer delay before signing, or better heuritics, I leave to the bot op and others to figure out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Between having SineBot doing its job, even if it makes non-Twinkle rollback a little harder, and having to manually add {{unsigned}} (even with a script), I'd rather have SineBot. I don't know whether an increased delay would help much; I do know that some have sometimes complained about AnomieBOT even for tasks where it waits some time before editing, but I don't know how many more would with a different delay. Anomie⚔ 19:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I think this particular issue would be reasonably well addressed by young the default delay to 10 minutes. Most of the time that this becomes an issue the reverts are fairly quick. If we also drop the edit summaries that fixes part of the other problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I think somewhere in the 5-10 minutes range would be a reasonable delay, excluding the exceptions at the high priority list. Anything longer than that timeframe would likely be too slow, and anything smaller risks not being a drastic enough change. Either that or we somehow get all people doing counter vandalism to realize that Twinkle can rollback through bots (which almost certainly can't happen). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I remember what it was like before we had SineBot (and its predecessor HagermanBot, IIRC that was the first signing bot). People did forget to sign quite often so humans had to history-hunt and use {{subst:unsigned2}} or friends. The bots generally make life more convenient for most users, even if vandalism can get slightly harder to deal with. Experimenting with the delay might be beneficial, but I don't think we should fundamentally re-evaluate the signing bots. —Kusma (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
banter aside, in summary: 1) the bot is preferred over manually adding the sign (with the template), by looking for original author, and timestamp in the history. 2) add default delay (other than the control page) before signing the comment. 3) don't include username, and edit summary of the unsigned comment in bot's edit summary. Is there something else? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I would support 1,2 not sure about 3 since it (imo) will make harder to scan watchlists for offending material. But to answer the original question, no I don't think you have missed anything. Sohom (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I note User:Cryptic and User:K6ka expressed similar concerns about #3 above. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
It might be useful to disable SineBot for three months as a trial, then evaluate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
It's my opinion that SineBot is a net positive. Whenever I see an unsigned comment, I go through the page history and hover over each diff using MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js until I find the right author, then I go manually add {{subst:Unsigned|Author}}. If SineBot were turned off, I'd be doing this way more often, wasting time that I could be spending on other things. Keep SineBot running, please. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Will try this one out. The last script like this that I used was buggy though, thus my current approach. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
It would be helpful to better understand where SineBot has been activated. What percentage of usages is on user talk pages? (Those are presumably activated by the user in question, and we shouldn't be messing around with what they've activated on their talk page without extremely good reason. They put it there for a reason.) How many article talk pages? Wikipedia space talk pages? Are these exceedingly busy pages where the proposed 5-minute delay would create issues? What's the net effect of not including the username in the signature, and why does it make a difference? Let's get a few more facts into the mix before making decisions. Risker (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, I can easily answer "where" (as could anyone with xtools), and sort of answer how often it's a problem by looking at how many revdeletions and suppressions were performed. quarry:query/97967. I'd have to give more thought on how to determine busy-ness. —Cryptic 08:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
"easily" is a bit more difficult given how xtools won't run on SineBot due to its large edit count (2,566,981 as of this writing!). I pulled a list of the last 5000 edits SineBot made, and here are the namespace counts:
3181 are from mainspace talk pages
1003 are from user talk pages
591 are from the Wikipedia (Project) namespace
5 from Category talk
11 from Draft talk
16 from File talk
10 from Help talk
5 from MediaWiki talk
5 from Portal talk
29 from Template talk
129 from Wikipedia talk (Project talk)
The remaining 15 pages are in the Draft, Template, and mainspace, seemingly there because the initial pages were drafted in a talk namespace by an inexperienced user, which was then later moved into the correct namespace.
@Risker:What percentage of usages is on user talk pages? (Those are presumably activated by the user in question, and we shouldn't be messing around with what they've activated on their talk page without extremely good reason. They put it there for a reason.) Could you clarify what you meant by this? To my understanding, SineBot watches all talk pages, including user talk pages, by default; users don't opt-in to the bot unless they have over 800 edits. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh. Whoops. Obviously I didn't actually try xtools with SineBot. The query I linked also has total edits by namespace, and percentages, for its sample of the bot's last 51227 edits.I'm not able to do any analysis of the time between SineBot's edits and the next one on the same page. I've tried several approaches, but haven't been able to find one where the optimizer uses the right indices; and since I only have access to the public views on the replicas, I can't force it to. —Cryptic 00:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma and also remember well the time before automatic signing bots. Unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves on here. Not only do they make attribution more difficult, they also interfere with talk page archiving by Lowercase sigmabot III. Disabling SineBot would make it more likely that I'd have to make edits like this. Graham87 (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm interested in why/how folks are leaving unsigned comments especially when DiscussionTools autosigns comments anyway. Sohom (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Unsigned comments also means you can't use DiscussionTools to reply so another reason why signing is so important. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Whenever people edit a section on a talk page without DiscussionTools (for example because DiscussionTools does not work on that page), they need to remember to sign manually. As the reply tool signs automatically, many people forget that they need to sign, so I would expect that the proportion of unsigned comments among non-DT contributions is actually increasing. —Kusma (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Pages by convention using lists for discussion are notably unable to use DT for top level items. XFD and most kinds of RFC are notable examples. IznoPublic (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Wild thought - adding {{Unsigned}} correctly is certainly tedious, so is there any way Twinkle or some gadget could put an option for it in the revision history or diff display? NebY (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Installed and working; it's nicely built. NebY (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Novem Linguae that SineBot is is a net positive and I am not in favor of turning it off, even for a trial. I've previously requested that it also wait longer before adding a signature when the comment triggered an edit filter that has a warning or captcha action: User talk:Slakr/Archive 26 §Delaying signatures in some cases. Increasing the delay without any other changes would be an improvement, but I think delaying for five minutes all of the time and delaying for 10 or 15 minutes if a warning or captcha edit filter was triggered would work even better. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
+1, exactly this. Toadspike[Talk] 23:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
That's solid, especially if the filter hit consideration can be added as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd support a delay and that sounds like a good compromise. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
stale, he's no longer claiming to be the Duke Of York, nor to have 10,000 men, that's pretty clear Mfield (Oi!) 05:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a heads up. At Prince Andrew, Duke of York & related pages, we're getting a wave of 'well intentioned' but 'misinformed' editors, concerning whether or not Andrew is still Duke of York. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to report what I believe is an abuse of administrative authority (threatening with block) and violation of WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. In the Heterophobia section, I removed a 1999 quote by Raymond J. Noonan that was sourced to a non-academic personal webpage (that's against VER) and contained highly subjective, non-scientific, and biased language ("pseudoscience", "victimology", etc.). My edit summary (discussion thread) clearly stated that the quote violates both WP:NPOV and WP:VER, as it gives undue weight to one opinion that is neither scholarly nor reliably sourced.
The admin @Black Kitie reverted this justified removal, insisting the quote should remain as-is because "Noonan is referenced as an authority" - which is simply not true and not verifiable. I posted an explanation on their talk page (diff) outlining all reasons based on Wikipedia policy. Instead discussing the problem, the admin replied with "No, you don’t. And if you remove it again you will break 3RR."
This feels like a threat rather than a collegial reminder; it violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and acts as censorship of a valid, well-justified edit. The issue here is not edit warring, but the admin’s threats to enforce inclusion of a non-neutral, unreliable source.
I am asking for a review of this situation, and intervention regarding both the disputed content and the conduct of User:Black Kite. BZPN (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
P.S. BRD is a suggested editing model, not an absolute rule; It’s meant for good-faith disagreements, not for keeping unsourced or biased content. The quote was removed in accordance with WP:V, which explicitly allows unsourced or poorly sourced material to be removed without prior discussion. The restored quote fails WP:V, yet it should remain out of the article until a reliable source is provided. BZPN (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
@BZPN Looking at the situation, I don't see where Black Kite is acting in bad faith. Accordingly, this seems to be a content dispute. Content disputes do not qualify for exceptions to 3RR; you will have to make a case at the article's talk page for why you feel the source is an unfaithful representation of the conference proceedings. —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
(ec) And if you remove it again you will break 3RR is a warning, not a threat to block. From your description, this is a dispute between two editors, and the fact that one of those editors is an administrator isn't relevant. And neither of you have used the article's talk page, where the discussion about the quote should take place. Schazjmd(talk) 23:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
I think you should stop there. That's prejudice, and you have no right to say that, yet indirectly accuse me of bad intentions. As long as I make changes that comply with the rules, I can edit the topics I want. I recommend reading WP:AGF. BZPN (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Elsewhere you have claimed to have never edited on LGBT topics before. That is clearly untrue for anyone who remembers your userbox conflict earlier this year. In fact it seems all you want to be doing on Wikipedia is to push a specific POV regarding LGBTQ+ people. I think, frankly, a topic ban was lenient. There's a pretty strong case to be made for WP:NOTHERE and a full cban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223, I have one request for you: If you can, please point out just one diff where I even edited LGBT-related content (ofc excluding the section in question) and at the same time tried to push a specific POV. Could you do that for me? BZPN (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Since the relevant userboxes were deleted the best you will get is the deletion log. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I asked for content, not user space, because that's what WP:TEND and WP:CTOPIC is all about, isn't it?:). BZPN (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Not at all. CTOPIC applies in all namespaces (Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; the contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic...) because otherwise people could game the system by editing outside mainspace (i.e. in draft or userspace). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@BZPN: you say you're here to report "an abuse of administrative authority". Can you point clearly to where administrative anything has occurred? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
In the ongoing trans healthcare case, ArbCom has made clear that there is a meaningful difference between an editor whose edits merely happen to coincide with a particular POV on gender issues, and someone who engages in overt advocacy on that issue and then lets that affect their content editing. Whatever the content merits here, BZPN is showing in this thread that they cannot engage constructively in this topic due to their strong views, and so as an uninvolved admin I have imposed a WP:CT/GG TBAN from anti-LGBTQ sentiment, broadly construed and including "mirror" concepts such as heterophobia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Not anymore, they aren't. -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Polite note that asilvering reverted the closure of the AE discussion, noting wait, that's too early. Gramix13 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Five hours to go. Not that I can imagine consensus swinging in the other direction. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
sourced to a non-academic personal webpage (that's against VER). I'm guessing VER refers to WP:Verifiability, in which case this is wrong. This would be covered by WP:EXPERTSPS (part of that policy), Noonan would appear to be an expert previously published in the field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 08:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
This is an editor who apparently is capable of contributing unproblematically at simple.wiki. BZPN, I'm not sure why you're having this problem here. You're experienced, there and on pl.wiki. You're at an experience level where we expect you to understand there are things you may not understand -- I'm sure there are policies on simple and pl that aren't identical, for instance, so I'm sure you must have realized there would be differences here too. Why in the world did you come into en.wiki and immediately start editing in one of the most contentious topics on the site? Valereee (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Proposal:BZPN site banned for WP:NOTHERE
COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED
Per the clause in WP:CBAN, this is a case where where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours, and thus I am closing it with a community ban imposed by overwhelming consensus. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems the main thing that BZPN's participation on this site brings is arguments on deletion discussions, arbitration enforcement actions and administrator noticeboards about precisely how much Wikipedia should tolerate homophobic views from editors. Their participation does not forward the construction of an encyclopedia but it is consistently disruptive. Enough is enough. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
At the very least this merits a topic ban from sexuality broadly construed. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
In terms of a sexuality topic ban I say meh just let Tamzin's topic ban play out, I'm sure Tamzin or someone would broaden it if BZPN extends their disruption to other areas of sexuality not covered by Tamzin's narrower one. It doesn't seem likely their AE appeal will succeed, at most they might convince AE to extend their topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - The editor-in-question, has no previous blocks. Let's allow the t-ban to work, first. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support site ban. I respect your suggestion, Guy, of an even broader t-ban than the already broadly construed t-ban they are already under, but I think the problem isn't just the topic area but their fundamental approach to collaborative editing: they can't. Their current AE appeal shows a default towards BATTLEGROUND, and this is merely a continuation of what got them t-banned in the first place (I see the battleground behavior has already been noted at AE by an admin, who also raised the question of whether that sanction was actually severe enough). And it's not new behavior either. Their essay ("Right to hold dissenting views about social issues without malice") was taken to MfD on the gropunds of WP:POLEMIC, which one editor summarized as "Wikipedia should allow me to insult LGBT people", one as a concern-trolling WP:POLEMIC and another suggested it makes it clear [BZPN] poorly understands LGBTQ+ issues and are seeking to create a lampshade for potential future POV pushing—and here we are. The closing admin advised BZPN to consider the community's response to this and the userbox and decide what you want your editing future to look like—but here we are. The MfD over their userbox ("this user opposes LGBT+ ideology due to religious, legal, and moral reasons") involved BZPN attacking editors for holding an "unlawful" discussion (!); the userbox was criticized for being obviously divisive and inflammatory (), trolling or offensive (), and "needlessly" so (, , ).And that was only a few months ago; per Black Kite, obvious trolling, needs blocking frankly. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Fortuna. BZPN's response to the topic ban has been to accuse other editors of censorship and activism, falsely claim to have never made LGBT-related edits before when everyone can see the extensive MfD drama from a few months ago, and shout loudly about WP:AGF while posting this on Tamzin's usertalk. This has convinced me there are fundamental behavioural issues at play here (WP:BATTLEGROUND) which couldn't be relieved by a topic ban. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I said I'd never edited LGBT-related content before, not that I'd never participated in such topics at all. It's important to realize that content = main namespace articles, and content ≠ all namespaces. BZPN (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Actually you said "This is my first edit involving LGBTQ-related content, with no prior history of contentious editing in this subject area" so even if we accept it was your first edit involving LGBTQ-related comment the second part was ambigious since you did have prior history of contentious editing in both the subject area of the CTOP you were restricted under and also priort editing of the subject area of your topic ban. If you had wanted to restrict the second part of your comment also to LGBTQ-related content, you should have been clearer. Since you specifically said subject-area instead of anything about content, editors may reasonably construe you meant the second part more expansively to cover either the subject area of the CTOP or the subject area of your ban as otherwise the second part is redundant. In any case, your comment is also unproductive, since reasonably when considering either restriction under the CTOP or a topic ban, editors will consider all your editing which is covered under those things rather than some other thing. If anything bad editing under the CTOP or topic ban outside the content space actually reflects even worse on you since you don't have the excuse you were trying to improve the encyclopaedia with your poor editing. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support site ban. Fortuna imperatrix mundi comments above that "the problem isn't just the topic area but [BZBN's] fundamental approach to collaborative editing". And given this entirely inappropriate edit and redaction BZBN arbitrarily slapped into the middle of the next comment, It is impossible to see it any other way, in my opinion. BZBN is clearly participating on Wikipedia only to push their own PoV, and seems incapable of even attempting to behave in anything but an utterly combative manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
It's funny, I probably would have opposed the MfDs if I'd !voted. I tend to think it's better to keep such things out in the open. And on a very literal level I don't disagree with the statement in the deleted essay that Just as users are allowed to write This user supports LGBT rights, it should not be inherently wrong to say: This user believes in traditional family values or This user is not supportive of same-sex marriage, due to religious or cultural beliefs - provided that this is not accompanied by hate, mockery, or personal attacks, although I do think people who go out of their way to make that point are usually dog-whistling something worse than that. But my point is, I wouldn't support a siteban just for their views, or even for the disruptive exposition of those views, for which the TBAN I imposed should suffice. What gets me to support is the persistent wikilawyering. BZPN acts like they've found some loophole in which you can advocate a partisan viewpoint in userspace and it's not admissible if you then push the same POV in mainspace. They, as Fortuna notes, accused the first MfD of being "unlawful". Their U4C case (relevant here inasmuch as it's part of the same pattern of conduct) argued that the UCoC bars sister-venue moderators from banning exclusionary speech (a reading of policy that was unanimously rejected). This has gone on for months. They clearly think they can wikilawyer their way out of consequences, despite having a poor grasp of the policies at work. This does not appear to be a pattern of behavior that is going to abate on its own. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - WP:Hate is disruptive, and the pettifogging and splitting hairs here is only convincing me that they think they've found that One Trick They Don't Want You To KnowTM SM (R) when it comes to Wikipedia discussions. Homie don't play dat. I'm not convinced a topic ban, even one as broad as WP:CT/GENSEX broadly construed is the answer; this is an all-CTOPs% speedrun waiting to happen. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per above. This seems to me like an easy enough WP:BOOMERANG. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Tamzin and Jéské. Time is finite, like patience. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - this editor has made abundantly clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. —Rutebega(talk) 17:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per you can't argue Wikipedia into capitulation. On a collaborative project such as this one must learn to collaborate, and that means discussing constructively and in good faith with others who challenge your edits. There is no form of collaboration that looks like constantly trying to wiki-lawyer one's way around needing to talk to people who disagree with you, and repeatedly trotting out policies and guidelines that you think are loopholes giving you a right to keep doing things you've been told, repeatedly, to not do. We already have too much patience for this kind of antisocial behaviour. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for not just wikilawyering but making such a deceptive complaint. BK quite rightly replied "No you don't" to "I have the right to remove it", not to "an explanation on their talk page (diff) outlining all reasons based on Wikipedia policy" as BZPN came here asserting. NebY (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment:Go ahead, close this thread and impose a site ban at my own request. Let’s end this absurdal ideological circus once and for all. I tried to defend neutrality and policy-based editing, but as you can see, I lost against the ideological pressure. BZPN (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
It's a strange way of defending neutrality to insult those of your fellow editors who happen to be gay. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - given BZPN's comment above. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: Per Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Ivanvector, as well as per BZPN's most recent comment here which further demonstrates their incessantly combative approach to editing. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 23:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Fortuna's and Tamzin's rationales, and BZPN's above request for a site ban making it absolutely clear they don't understand what is wrong with their conduct that this AN thread is focusing on by continuing to treat this as an ideological battleground that they have "lost". Gramix13 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. This person is obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Katzrockso (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can a admin close this move review.
Closed by GiantSnowman. Rusalkii (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks Cinaroot (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Please be patient, someone will get around to it eventually. And goodness, some participants in that discussion need a reminder that we have a 1,000 word limit in this area. Toadspike[Talk] 10:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
I will review. GiantSnowman 10:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Done. Think I've followed all the steps... GiantSnowman 11:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks all.... Cinaroot (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Call for election clerk volunteers for the 2025 arbitration committee election
While it concerns a different page, this is substantively a relitigation of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy. That was a controversial discussion and it is entirely possibly that consensus has since changed, but the correct venue to determine that is MfD, not AN, which cannot overturn a consensus decision like that. Note that procedurally MfD is the correct venue to request removal of a userbox that is hardcoded onto a userpage, even if one does not want the full userpage deleted. That's a bit strange but it's how it works; usually if the person wants to recreate their userpage with the offending content removed, the deleting admin allows it. Or sometimes the consensus is just to mandate removal of the 'box specifically. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I noticed the first userbox on this page (User:Easternsahara), clearly signalling support for Hezbollah, who are designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, almost all of the Arab League, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Japan (I could go on)
There was previous consensus against userboxes that explicitly mentioned Hezbollah, as well as ones that alluded to it (See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox). I don't want to remove it off their page of course but am unsure how to go about a conversation because, naturally, they would disagree with my opinion.
I'm not sure if a consensus from 17 years ago is really pertinent here. Is there anything more recent, otherwise I don't think we should blindly rely on a discussion from 17 years ago without further discussion (there is a strong argument from WP:UBCR). Katzrockso (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
That was the discussion linked in the userbox itself as to why it cannot explicitly name the organization. If anything, it should be considered more 'offensive' now given the fact that Hezbollah was not (as) widely recognised as a terrorist group until years after
More than that,
Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
Wikipedia is not a place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)
Wikipedia is not a place for: Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics
Yes, that is from the page I linked. I think there are a lot of complicated issues here that make it not so clear. I am not going to defend the organization at all, since I am not particularly acquainted with the history of it. But you would need to draw a line between the userboxes for many other political topics and this one, and I'm not certain that such a distinction can be so cleanly made. Katzrockso (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I think a distinction can be made.
There is no other userbox, to my knowledge, that signals support for a violent militia, let alone one that has been recognised by a terrorist group by the entire Western (and much of the Arab) world, and who have killed hundreds of Americans in suicide bombings.
It is not a nuanced or complicated issue. Aesurias (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
There are userboxes to support particular countries. I have seen many people express the belief that particular governments support terrorist organizations or themselves constitute a terrorist organization, that are participants in or direct causes of structural or direct violence, etc.
That the features you have picked out constitute a meaningful distinction between a userbox supporting the Russian government, for instance, is not clear. Perhaps the best example you provide is the current designation of the organization as a terrorist organization, but there has always been dispute over the classification of terrorism (I believe there is a whole section of academia that studies this - Lisa Stampnitzky's book "Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented 'Terrorism'" is one example) and it has always been itself fraught with political attributes (for instance why is violence conducted by a state not classified or considered as terrorism). Katzrockso (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll note this discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy from 2015, and User:Nableezy, which contains the same userbox as currently is being used by Easternsahara. This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is afraid to name particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.
Wikipedia:UBCR contains current guidelines for acceptable userboxes and states Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive. It then goes on to state that Wikipedia:UPNOT has further explanation as to what is not acceptable, as the rules for what is acceptable for userboxes echoes that which is acceptable for the rest of the userpage.
I'm pointing this all out because, to my reading, there is a lot of gray in this area, and we have not aggressively removed divisive userboxes, unless they are "beyond the pale". I personally have no strong opinion in this particular instance, though having multiple copies of the userbox is a bit of "in your face" disturbance and counterproductive, even if the box is marginally acceptable, as some would argue. —rsjaffe🗣️ 02:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
If you want to pursue deleting that particular userbox from Wikipedia, Miscelleny for Deletion would be the place to host that discussion. Do note that several users (at least) currently have that userbox. —rsjaffe🗣️ 03:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I would note that Easternsahara seems to already have removed the userboxes from their serpage, so I'm not sure if this discussion is even necessary. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I will be reinstating it after I publish List of World Heritage Sites in Burundi. Aesurias thinks that Hezbollah does violence and it is bad for this reason. I think violence is very justified when dismantling systems of oppression that are even more violent (colonialism in this case). It also literally fights islamic state and al qaeda. There are userboxes that say that this user is a veteran of the iraq war, the afghan war, the israeli army, etc. In this case, it would be like saying this user was a member of Hezbollah. Now you may point out that these are not designated terrorists, but that doesn't really matter to you in the case of Hezbollah does it? The most pressing reason that you believe Hezbollah is because they killed people right? Should those veteran userboxes have a place on wikipedia? sure because userboxes can express political beliefs and past actions. If tomorrow all userboxes, except the most mild of food and music interests as well as babel boxes, were deleted and new creations banned, then I would gladly remove it from my page. However, this sadly is not the case, and so I will continue to have the yellow userbox on my userpage. (would you believe it if I said its a reference to no step on snek? I'd also like to point out that, while UCBR isn't enforced much, I don't think a userbox meets the "Wikipedia is not a place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)" criteria unless it literally tells you to convert a religion or join a group/army (which this userbox doesn't do). Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I will also not be participating in this discussion anymore unless mandated by an admin as it is a waste of time for all the people involved here. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think those userboxes you mentioned are remotely helpful either , (to me) , political userboxes create division. Particularly in those cases you mentioned.
I don't know if those people with those userboxes killed people, but I know Hezbollah were behind the murders of hundreds of Americans and French soldiers, Lebanese civilians, Israeli civilians & soldiers. Hezbollah plotted dozens of terror attacks against worldwide Jewish institutions, and executed the AMIA bombing that killed 85 civilians in Buenos Aires.
I am not disagreeing with you in any way about the division created by other political userboxes, but I think it's disingenuous to try claim there is any equivalence. Regardless of the war crimes committed by US soldiers in these wars, including murders, neither the U.S. or Israeli army are recognised by dozens of countries as a violent terrorist group.
and no, given that the userbox explicitly links to a conversation about Hezbollah on Wikipedia, I would not believe you if you told me it was a reference to Don't Tread On Me. Aesurias (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the Nableezy MfD linked above made the community position on this fairly clear, last time it came up. And that is much more recent than a discussion from 2007. Parabolist (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not explicitly requesting the userbox be deleted, or I would have gone to the correct page for that. I wanted opinions on whether the user box is just toeing the line, or over it.
I am not sure how the Nableezy MfD discussion would translate to this, specifically, as the person who initiated that was requesting the user page's deletion, which is ridiculous.
Is the phrase "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression by other parties" within the userbox not flagrantly violating this rule? Regardless of use of the word 'resistance', they are advocating for acts of violence. Aesurias (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The userbox is coded directly onto the page, not transcluded, so you could not have nominated it for deletion anyway. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
In some countries, there is a constitutional right to resist. Indeed, America was founded upon a rebellion and such acts of violence are commonly taught to schoolchildren as correct or justified. The applicability of that guideline is not clear. You'll also note that the guideline you are stating here specifically states `"Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence`. Katzrockso (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Such a right does not exist in Lebanon. The new Lebanese government have already condemned Hezbollah repeatedly and publicly called on the group to disarm and give up its weapons.
Thank you for the insight regarding acts of violence though. It's definitely a gray zone Aesurias (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Whether or not the right to resist exists in Lebanon is irrelevant, the point is that moral principles vary by country and there is little reason to insist that Wikipedia impose a particular restriction on moral principles that are enshrined in different countries' constitutions without a particularly compelling reason.
Here's another very good example: capital punishment. At Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues there are several userboxes that promote the use of capital punishment. By most definitions of the term "violence", capital punishment is an act of violence. Do these userboxes violate that policy? Katzrockso (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
You are creating a huge timesink over a userbox that (if it could be) you don't think should be deleted, on a page that you don't think should be deleted either. If you think the box is "over the line" and shouldn't exist on a userpage, why wouldn't you support it's deletion? That's why the Nableezy discussion is relevant. He wasn't sanctioned for having it on his page either, and neither should this user be. You started editing in March, immediately stepping over the CTOP line, and now that you're EC, you're immediately resorting to this? Come on. Parabolist (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Deleting request for Darth Nihilus and Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series
Another double redirect on a fully-protected page following a move that has now been fixed. This is likely the same user from the chess and Andrew Lowe redirects. These do require admin attention but are not G6-eligible. For future maintenance requests of this type, it would be preferable to use {{Edit fully-protected}} on the redirect's talk page. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redirects from page moves should generally be kept. They do not meet the WP:G6 criteria. Aydoh8[whathaveIdonenow?] 13:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Are you the one that filed the G6 requests for Andrew Lowe (astronomer) and Gothic chess? If so, you should carefully read it and I emphasize this part: This is for uncontroversial maintenance. In your two requests, it is pretty clear that it is not uncontroversial maintenance. I don't even think it meets any of the examples (issues with page moves or unambiguous errors such as moving away from a title that was obviously unintended, and these are probably unintended but don't warrant deletion and instead warrant retargeting. I suspect you are the same because of the identical request format as if copy pasted. I also think you don't have a great grasp of english based on your grammar, though it may be just an accident. 2A04:7F80:55:D888:4D6E:7FEF:B1E9:782A (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
please revdel this
Done by Black Kite; for future reference, the procedure at WP:REVDELREQUEST is preferred to such a widely viewed page. Rusalkii (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
pls reopen this discussion bc it is not about Palestine-Israel. It is about the source reliability and honest reporting. The source covers Pal-Is but this is not what we are discussing. Thank you. 176.28.144.44 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Temporary checkuser privileges for 2025 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers
In any challenge to the closure of a formal discussion within the WP:GENSEX topic area, users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. (See details.)
An uninvolved administrator may restrict participation in an arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) noticeboard thread to certain users. (See details.)
Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.
Colin and Samuelshraga are indefinitely banned from transgender healthcare, broadly construed, and are admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.
Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards and admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I ask you to remove my block. Thank you.
I think that don't nothing to compromize Wikipedia. Wanchope16 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accidentally moved user talk page to draft space
Page fetched. Rusalkii (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When moving a user page to draft space I accidentally moved the user's talk page too. Can anyone move Draft_talk:Alena_Vandaele back to user space? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki (she/they|talk) 18:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
@TheTechie: For future reference, you can reverse a move yourself if no edits have been made to the redirect since it was created. Then just tag the new redirect (the one from the page you didn't mean to create) with {{db-g7}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strange long-term pattern at Kosem Sultan
I ended up with this page on my watchlist because there was a conflict there and I went in as a neutral party to try and de-escalate. As I do tend to watch pages about Asian history this kind of ended up lumped into that subset of my page-watching and I've noticed a very strange recurring pattern where, every few months or so, a new set of IP (or recently joined) editors will approach the article and try to revise the POV to minimize the influence this figure wielded. I am unsure whether this is a single person or group of people with a revolving IP or whether it's a collection of editors all of whom have concerns with the page. Generally, when I've seen this sort of comportment at the page of an historical figure, it's because of competing nationalisms. But I haven't seen any nationalistic project that would seek to reduce the historical relevance of powerful women in the Ottoman Empire. And I have looked. All this is to say that this has become both something where I suspect chicanery but where I find myself unequal to the task of figuring out exactly what is going on besides "something suspicious." I've been somewhat of the position of just trying to maintain the status-quo on the article since waves of IPs who seem to be motivated by a POV generally lead to instability but I'm not even sure if this is the best approach here anymore because I can't figure out what exactly it is that drives this POV. If the article is just wrong but for some reason only IP editors have any interest in fixing it... well that would be a very unusual circumstance but I can't rule it out. Anyway this is definitely not an emergency nor do I think it's something that could be resolved by sanctioning an editor. It's not vandalism and while there might be WP:LOUT going on I certainly don't know who the master would be. But also there's something weird going on here and I feel like there's something I'm not seeing. So I figured this might be a venue to at least get alternate eyes on it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m writing because when I became an admin, and later an arbitrator, it was my intent to do everything possible to protect the community that I belong to and love. I work for that community, not for the WMF. Also, when I ran for the committee I committed to providing transparency whenever possible. The recent incident at WCNA 2025 has pushed me into breaking the ANPDP in order to make sure the community that I serve is safe, and has all the information they need to make informed decisions about their continued safety.
On February 20th, I blocked Gapazoid, who is Connor Weston, the person who brandished a firearm and threatened suicide at the conference. Any oversighter can look at their user page, which I suppress deleted at the time, to verify this. The Arbitration Committee is also aware of his name as he appealed my block to the committee via email. I blocked them for child protection/pedophilia advocacy. I also immediately emailed WMF Trust and Safety, seeking and expecting a WMF ban. The following day Risker pulled talk page access due to continued disruption. They were already blocked on Wiktionary for the same reason.
For the next several months I pressed with every tool at my disposal for a WMF ban. This included discussion on several Arbitration Committee calls with the foundation. My fellow arbs joined me in pushing for this ban. It was such a sticking point between the committee and the foundation that the WMF held a “Process sync” call on June 24th for us to explain how T&S makes decisions about WMF bans.
During this process, on April 25th, Weston sent an email to the info queue saying they were going to travel to the WMF offices to protest my block. The message states, in full:
<information redacted>
This email was forwarded to T&S who verified receipt. I am also aware that information regarding Weston threatening suicide was sent to T&S.
On August 11th they closed the case, along with a second child protection case, with no action. To quote the email sent to me personally in response to my initial report:
Having carefully weighed the evidence, we found no indication that Gapazoid’s contributions amount to advocacy or encouragement of illicit activity.
In their response to the Committee they said:
We recognize that taking no action in these cases may not fully align with what ArbCom expects or hopes the WMF's role to be in situations of child safety concerns, particularly given the importance and sensitivity of child safety matters on the platform and the fact that you, ArbCom, have been trusting the Foundation for years to handle these matters. The fact is, however, that while the community can sanction based solely on its own judgement, the Foundation must be able to legally defend our decisions to take action, including their consistency with our policies over time. This includes the need to have evidence of a risk of harm that violates our policies. We don’t think that either of the above two examples would be successful in meeting that standard.
This decision allowed a suicidal pedophile who threatened to travel in-person to WMF headquarters to protest a block to gain access to an in-person meeting of our community. Even if they didn’t plan on using a gun to end their life in front of all of us, this would still be unacceptable.
In the weeks and months leading up to the convention the committee and other members of the community brought up concerns about event security, and were assured that appropriate security measures would be taken. At the event there was essentially no security. No bag checks and no checks with a metal detector or wand. After the incident there was an increased presence of security personnel and bag screenings, but no additional searching or screening of carried belongings.
Every member of the community deserves, and absolutely must be given, the ability to make informed decisions about their safety within the community. The WMF is responsible for taking every reasonable action to keep our community safe. In this case, they made the unreasonable decision of not banning a suicidal pedophile who had made clear their intent to protest a community block in person, and in doing so explicitly allowed the incident at WCNA to occur. The foundation’s actions put everyone attending the conference in life-threatening danger. Thankfully, due to members of our community, the worst case was avoided, but this was in spite of the WMF’s decisions and actions.
From a personal perspective, before I left to attend the conference my wife expressed concern for my safety. She’s aware of the anti-abuse work I do, and the threats of harm and death that come along with that. I told her, based on the WMF’s assurances, that it was safe for me to attend, they planned on having enhanced security, and she didn’t have a need to worry. Days later I would be sending her messages after evacuating the conference due to a suicidal man that I’d blocked from Wikipedia months earlier charging the stage with a gun. As soon as he began speaking, I recognized with horror who it was. I immediately informed WMF employees on-site. I was not informed that Weston would be attending, and either T&S didn’t screen the attendees or screened the list and let this pass. Either situation is completely unacceptable.
Thankfully, no one was physically hurt. Due to heroism by members of our own community, the threat was mitigated, but that doesn’t mitigate the trauma we all suffered. It is essential that nothing like this ever happen again, and because of that the community must be aware of the extent of the failures that occurred. The community did everything right in this situation, from blocking a pedophile, reporting it to T&S, forwarding the suicide threats and intention to protest in person, and pushing in every conceivable way for a WMF ban, and due to systemic failures from the WMF we were almost all party to an incredible tragedy.
This statement is published with the consent of the majority of active, non-recused members of the Arbitration Committee.
The arbitration clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner.
Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for clerks rival that of arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!
Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you. Editors are also encouraged to reach out to any active clerk to discuss their suitability, the clerk's experiences, and any other questions that may be helpful to address.
For the clerks of the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
This is something that has tickled the back of my brain for awhile, and a recent RFPP request regarding WP:GS/KURD - which mandates extended confirmed restrictions for the topic area - for an article not currently being disrupted has pushed me over the edge to ask about this. As part of the protection policy, we are not supposed to preemptively protect articles, except within certain topic areas where it is permitted. One of these being the former WP:GSCASTE area, now part of WP:CT/SA, which explictly says articles within it may be preemptively protected, with the topic area being under ECR. The thing is, a topic placed under under ECR is under de factoextended confirmed protection. Is it therefore acceptable to "preemptively" place articles in a ECR topic area under de jure (actual) ECP? I would in a vaccuum say yes (again, ECR is functionally ECP, just with the added step of being "manually enforced"), but the CT/SA clause #5 specifically calling out GSCASTE as being permitted for preemptive protection, when it's also under ECR, makes me wonder, especially when WP:CT/IMH, also part of CT/SA, is not called out as such. I suppose this could be a case where multiple, unrelated remedies passed in the ArbComm case, but figured best to ask to be sure. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Wasn't this basically the issue at hand in ? -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering: It's related, but not quite - the locus there was All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. Which applies certainly to PIA, but what about WP:CT/IMH, WP:GS/A-A and WP:GS/KURD? @Voorts: I'd ask there, but some of the areas in question are not ArbCom-imposed ECR/ECP (A-A and KURD are both ECR-ified by the community GS, not the ArbCom CT). - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
That said, while looking up WP:BLUELOCK related to the thread below, I see When [ECR] is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection (echoed at WP:ARBECR), which I suppose answers my question and I feel silly for not having checked there first. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
It does for the CTOPs but not for the two GS ones, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
No but both WP:GS/KURD and WP:GS/A-A say "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." Possibly this was missed if searching since it doesn't use the word preemptive but it implies it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Welp, I guess I'm just blind, since I managed to completely overlook that. That does answer the question! - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
There are five tiers of permissibility for applying extended confirmed protection to articles, which depend on the applicable sanctions:
From the restriction: "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required."
The WP:PP §Extended confirmed restriction section is in effect: "Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required".
Remedy text: "Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by [the topic area] when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption."
Remedy text: "All articles whose topic is strictly within [the topic area] shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article."
When an article is subject to both ECR and the preemptive protection remedy (e.g. all articles about South Asian social groups), the preemptive protection remedy functions as encouragement to apply ECR preemptively, but does not require it. Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection §As arbitration enforcement provides an answer to your question: "Administrators may apply indefinite extended confirmed protection at any time to any page covered by ECR at their discretion, whether or not there has been disruptive editing on the page." (Disclosure: I recently updated the language on that page, but did not change this sentence.) According to this, your extended confirmed protection of the article People's Defence Forces is acceptable. —Newslingertalk 08:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
That needed a careful read-through, but I get the nuances a lot better now. Thank you! - The BushrangerOne ping only 19:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Please close a bad RM
Closed by Bushranger Rusalkii (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone take a look at this? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#XfD The IP's behavior is very similar to a near-identical RfD last month that was procedurally closed due to sock concerns. Apologies if this is the wrong venue; I wasn't sure where to take this. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk) 00:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Another editor has speedy-closed the discussion so maybe it's moot but there is a fishy pattern of behavior. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk) 01:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
see the spi. this is a returning sock with a habit of parroting stuff other people say, with the only consistent pattern being the end result being disruptive gibberish. they also nominated the redirect the last time as well. if someone could just get this over with, i'd be thankful
but really, the parroting got so out of hand that they repeated themself (and the rest of the sock drawer), fell into self-repetition (and of the other socks), and repeated its (and the fellow socks') own claims, what the hell is going on? consarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 01:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
also, they refactored other people's comments. this time, it was just mine. inconsequential overall since it was easy to revert, but annoying nonetheless consarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Well it's certainly not a DUKW...more seriously, that's the entire point of the duck test, so yes. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism and gaming from probable sockpuppet
BLOCKED
User blocked KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Aesurias: Next time this happens you should simply move the page back instead of draftifying the redirect, which makes the problem hard to fix. For some reason, non-page movers are able to overwrite redirects if they do so quickly. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
That was the first thing I tried to do, it didn't work for some reason. Probably something on my end if it usually works. Sorry, hope it was able to be resolved Aesurias (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
It's fine, I also messed up a page move because I tried to clear the redirect by moving it to somewhere else. I haven't really looked into how MediaWiki handles pages moves but the logic is likely quite complex. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The logic is that if A redirects to B and has only one revision then you can move A to B as a non-page-mover. Page movers can bypass the "redirects to B" part of that, and move over any one-revision redirect (in addition to being able to vacate any title by moving it without a redirect). Admins can move over everything, of course. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. So if a vandal moves a page and vandalizes the redirect, you won't be able to move the page back? That does seem antithetical of being able to undo all actions easily. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's true as a technical matter. But I don't think it's a major problem; a vandal making enough of a stink can already force an admin to block them, or protect a page, or whatever so the fact that they can force an admin to undo their move isn't much worse. phab:T62383 and its many duplicates suggest people don't like that behavior, though. * Pppery *it has begun... 04:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
This discussion should be closed, the user has been blocked. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mathmensch, move to WP:CBAN
COMMUNITY BANNED
By the unanimous consensus of the Wikipedia community, Mathmensch is community banned, with talk page access revoked. This falls under the there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours clause. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Propose a WP:CBAN (which happens automatically if this discussion upholds the block) and furthermore, propose revoking talk page access. Reasonable people may agree with the first and disagree with the second part of this proposal. --Yamla (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN and removal of talk page access. Having read the initial post in question and the talk page. User continued disruption on their talk page. They doubled down and refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK. They evoked "Free speech." (always a bad sign.) They are clearly advocating for pedophilia. (Anyone who wants to read a sad story-- email me.)---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Seems reasonable as the blocking admin. My block was also based on the lack of stick dropping after being warned. They were NOTHERE blocked from 2018-2023. Since they were unblocked, they made ~100 edits. Side note, the block was lifted with the condition "ONLY FOR EDITING MATHS AND PHYSICS ARTICLES" (emph. original). Trolling about child protection is outside of those bounds. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 10:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
(ec) Support both proposed actions. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. If I see further disruption, I will remove TPA on my own. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Sidebar Could the account have been COMPROMISED?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that's unlikely given the second unblock request. I haven't looked, though. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. On second thought, it might not matter. Whoever this is. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. And such could be handled (or the start of such could) at UTRS. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong support. Not here to constructively build an encyclopedia. I support ANY action you think of. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong Support - This is entirely antithetical to the project. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN and TPA removal --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support + TPA revoked per all above. TheKip(contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN and removing talk page access. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support both Wikipedia has zero tolerance for posts like the ones that user made. If they are unwilling to drop the stick, it's time we all collectively show them the door. This is the last thing we need after that incident. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for opening this Yamla. I don't really vote in ban discussions, but I have no objections to this person being banned. They still seem to have no idea why what they said was the exact wrong thing to say at the exact wrong moment; instead they seem to think this is a "free speech" issue. Making such a comment at any workplace on Earth would get you quickly fired. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support both. In addition to the points raised above, their comments are blatant violations of their first and third unblock conditions . They promised not to do this and they did it anyway. That is a serious breach of trust. Toadspike[Talk] 22:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support both as per the above reasonings. The user's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support they clearly do not understand what they did was wrong.—Isaidnoway(talk) 23:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN I'm as a general rule opposed to banning people over one spat, so came across this expecting to either sigh or futilely oppose, but this isn't that; this is someone whose produced a lot more heat than light over their entire career. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN. Regardless of whether this user is sincere in their beliefs or if they're here to troll us, their postings have clearly been disruptive on multiple occasions and have been a drain on the community's patience, as their block log and talk page history indicates. I think they need a break from Wikipedia for a while. MaterialsPsych (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN and talk page revocation - Invoking free speech specifically to drop a comment that is blatant flamebait means you flunked reading comprehension of XKCD 1357. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 07:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have closed this. There was absolutely no clear consensus I could ascertain after multiple readings to be certain, so I closed it accordingly. Mfield (Oi!) 05:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Consensus is not determined by simply counting supports and opposes — it must be based on the strength of the arguments in relation to Wikipedia’s policies and on whether those arguments have been effectively rebutted or not.
This move was re-listed because previous closer closed it without providing adequate closing summary. Cinaroot (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Sure give me 10 mins or so Mfield (Oi!) 05:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unfair Range Blocks
Everyone is super surprised that the initiator of this thread is now blocked. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd hardly consider "4 months ago" as "very old". 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) We don't shorten or undo range blocks just because they become "very old". There might be a good reason why the admin placed a long-term block on the IP range, e.g. persistent disruption from editors on that range over a long period of time, as well as shorter range blocks having been tried before but to no success (in fact, if you check the block log of these IP ranges, most of them have had at least one shorter rangeblock applied to them in the past). Or, the entire IP range could be allocated to an open proxy service, hence blocked in the long run straight away, as Wikipedia has a policy that all open proxies should be blocked from editing because of the amount of disruption that bad actors can cause by using them to deliberately bypass blocks on their actual public IP addresses.
In cases where collateral damage is apparent (e.g. a rather high volume of unblock/help requests over a short period of time), the range block may be undone before its expiration date, but I don't see that being the case with any of these listed IPs. —AP499D25(talk) 09:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Many of those ranges are heavily populated by dynamic OpenVPN proxies, and have been abused by WP:LTA/SB1. It seems to me, judging by Special:Contributions/45.130.10.57, that the probability of the OP being SB1 is non-zero. -- zzuuzz(talk) 10:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: This is probably related to this query a few months ago. The ranges mentioned were used by quite a few abusers, including Shāntián Tàiláng and BuickCenturyDriver. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's been closed. The editor who was reported, was playing around with the discussion. I figured WP:CR tends to take too long. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appeal block
FORUM SHOPPING
When you have access to your talk page (which you do) you appeal blocks on your talk page (which you have). - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I would like to appeal my block.
I understand now that my edits to the Eslöv school stabbing article violated Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, particularly the part about avoiding unsourced or poorly sourced material about living individuals. I’ve read through WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME carefully.
I now understand that we must not name or imply the identity of living persons accused of crimes unless the information is supported by reliable, published sources and the person has been convicted. I also recognize that any speculation, original research, or mention of non-public individuals can cause harm and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
I apologize for my earlier mistake. If unblocked, I will follow all BLP-related policies closely and avoid editing sensitive topics unless I’m sure I have high-quality, reliable sources. I’ll also ask for help at the Teahouse or relevant noticeboards if I’m unsure about policy in the future.
I'm not interested in editing the article, I am requesting an unblock because I cannot acces the wikipedia library while I have an active block.
I think the fact that it took two warnings and a pblock for that information to sink in is problematic. I think that they are only concerned (by their own admission) with getting access to the Wikipedia Library. I also think they already have an unblock request on their talk page and are forum shopping. Other than those thoughts, I have no thoughts about this. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Slodkiszczur keeps on vandalizing civic coalition (party) page and removing warnings from his own talk page.
The user @Slodkiszczur keeps on removing my sourced info and telling me that it's incorrectly sourced even tho it isn't. I tried to come to the talk page and resolve the dispute but no I also warned him twice but he removed his own warnings and continued his misbehavior. Austragar (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
You keep dodging and ignoring my questions. You haven't tried to resolve the dispute. I asked you what authority you have to warn me, and you didn't even respond. How can I treat your warnings with respect when you don't even respond to my questions about them? Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I also asked you where is proof for your claim in the source that you provided. You didn't answear. Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
And your warns came from two accounts. One IP user and then your registered account, Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What is evident on the talk-page is that no consensus has formed in favor of your edits, and that multiple other editors have suggested politely that (both of) you stop edit-warring, and that you (Austragar) need to better respect WP:OR. Both of these pieces of advice are sound; you should observe them. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The WP:OR issue is on a whole other topic/ideological piece not the center-right one. Besides something good came of it as there is a note in ideology now that mentions the party being officially pro-european but Tusk being against the ECHR.
What I know is that my centre-right addition to ideology was well sourced and there hasn't been any condemnation of it on the talk page by others either. So he's removing it for no reason with no support etc Austragar (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't the only one reverting "centre-right". Also my pronouns are she/her. Slodkiszczur (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Besides unlike a certain user I haven't fought against the consensus of the people when they chose to do what they did with pro-europeanism/the note about ECHR and Tusk they edited it I didn't revert
However in the case of centre-right where it clearly says CONSERVATIVES which is a right-wing ideology you kept on reverting together with an IP user without consulting the talk page. Without speaking to others about it and asking them so please. Austragar (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, like adding obscenities or nonsense or blanking pages. This isn't vandalism. But calling others' edits "vandalism" can be seen as a personal attack, so please don't do that. See WP:VANDAL for more.
Editors are able to remove warnings from their own user talk pages. It means that they've seen the warning. See WP:OWNTALK.
If there are questions about sourcing and the discussion isn't going anywhere, you can always start a neutral discussion at the No Original Research Noticeboard.
Without DIFFs showing misconduct, little or nothing will be done here. Woodroar (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Another bad RM closure request
Two ranges blocked Mfield (Oi!) 02:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rangeblocked the /42 range for a month, will start closing these other requests. Mfield (Oi!) 04:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Rangeblock, as the individual is likely not going to stop with these waste-of-time RMs. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Back again, (re-)creating more waste-of-time RMs. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@GoodDay, what is the IP this time? Or a link to one of the waste of time RMs? I don't see anything looking at the /32 of the previous IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Assuming the previous talk page edits on the /42 of that IP were by this person; some of that stuff is revdel'd, so I'm assuming it was disruptive like this current one, and the non revdel'd ones are "trump is a racist" and "trump is a rapist"; the range to block should be the /46. Blocking the /42 isn't a bad idea either though, it doesn't appear to be that active. Swift closure of Talk:Sean Combs#Requested move 23 October 2025 is another thing to be done. An eye might want to be kept on the /32. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked the /64 for 72 hours and rv'd/hatted the RMs. I'm hesitant to hit any of the larger ranges just yet, since this is the first activity on the /46 since August. But if they do continue to use that /46, starting with maybe a month's rangeblock would be reasonable given the lack of collateral damage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More multiple RMs
It appears that @2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67: has opened multiple RMS. Which appear to be wastes of time. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Seems like it might have to be very wide. Calculator said the /34 would be the range. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps a lesser range could be appropriate however. I counted the IPs in the previous /42 when calculating. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Ranges will likely need to be widened. The individual behind this latest mobile, is never going to stop with these useless RMs. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
OK standby, looking at those existing blocks Mfield (Oi!) 03:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
OK have blocked the /34 for 3 months this time. There's nothing else useful happening in the range. IP had even requested an unblock and that was under discussion here , but apparently they have ignored the responses are maybe only interested in being disruptive after all. Pinging asilvering, Yamla, PhilKnight who had responded to that unblock for visibility. Mfield (Oi!) 04:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Sigh. Here's hoping temp accounts mean we can actually have a conversation with them on their talk page next time. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I have speedy closed the remaining open RMs from this batch. Mfield (Oi!) 04:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
My 20+ yrs on this project, tells me that the individual is seeking entertainment. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
With you there, and if it were just a couple of repeated pages I'd semi protect the talk pages , but they seem to have widened their scope out. Mfield (Oi!) 04:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@GoodDay, you can probably just head to AIV with these at this point. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok. Meanwhile, I encourage all to be on the look out. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Amendments to Palestine-Israel articles 4
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.
Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notable WP:CIR issues from this user. Notable lack of civility. Notable misrepresentations of sources. Inability to respect WP:BRD. I’ll get diffs for these shortly, I’m sad it’s come to this. Mikewem (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
As a participant in the Moses discussion, I have to say I'm surprised that VenusFeuerFalle has escalated this to the noticeboards. To me, this still seems like primarily a content dispute, although I must agree with Mikewem that most of the aggression has been on VFF's part.
Something to note here is that VFF is not a native English speaker, which may partly account for the communication problems and VFF's resulting frustration. A. Parrot (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This is really just an insult from you. Claiming incompetence by someone who cannot even get basic terminology right is jsut appaling. If this does not lead to a ban, I am done with this project anyways. This is an utlimtum, I am tired of admins ignoring clear religious zealots and people who come from a religious baised viewpoints to be given the same credits as a historical secular viewpoint. This is not the Wikipedia I have invested my time and efforts into! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Whatever problems there may be with Mikewem's edits, I don't see what makes them the product of religious zealotry, and I'm rather puzzled that you keep jumping to that conclusion. A. Parrot (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This is all very surprising to me. I'm not familiar with this specific situation but I've collaborated with VenusFeuerFalle on topics related to religion before and would have never questioned their competence. I think de-escalation is likely appropriate here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I will say that, looking at the edit history, it does look like VenusFeuerFalle is engaged in borderline edit-warring and so I would suggest that de-escalation should also involve avoiding that behaviour and engaging at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
With that being said, VFF has raised some good points. For instance this website is most likely inappropriate as a source unless we really stretch WP:EXPERTSPS. So while I would recommend they remember there's no deadline and suggest they should avoid edit warring I'd also suggest that MikeWM should take some of their sourcing concerns more seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I want that source removed and VFF (the editor who originally added the source) insists on its inclusion to the point of being willing to edit war over it. That source, hosted by bartehrman.com is a covert ad, because it includes the statement, This reverence, however, didn’t preclude the occurrence of errors in transcription. For those intrigued by the complexities of textual transmission and its implications, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman offers a compelling exploration of this topic in his course, "The Scribal Corruption of the Scripture." That course is available to purchase at bartehrman.com for the low, low price of $60. Mikewem (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Most recent diff from Law of Moses where they re-inserted the covert ad. Mikewem (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeh thats the issue, you just do not like it therefore I am the evil one for adding it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I misread the diff then. Regardless, I don't think it's an appropriate source. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
thats fine by me, I am confident that we can find a better one. A tag {Better source needed} would ahve done the job. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The suspicion of religious Zealousy comes from the user making irrational arguements against my points. I had this experience now for about a year. It always goes as follows:
I make an edit on matters of religion, often either going against a lie build by "mainstream religious missionaries" or something from a religious point of view. A user finds this alarming, how dare I to bring their views into quesiton.
-> I comment in my edit sumamry the reason and the guidlines for my action.
-> the user ignores what I was saying and begins to edit war.
-> I contintue with more explanationa nd a comment on the talkpage.
-> my talkpage post gets ignored, edit war continues, now I am in an edit war.
-> the edit war gets more attention, so the other User makes claims about me I never did (build a strawman)
-> I refute the person but they just claim new things about me or what I allegedly did. Now everyone is confused and points at "deescalation strategies" which allows the disruptive often religious User to keep their edit. They either keep their version or revert main with the accusation of an edit-war on my part.
-> now, after causing a scene, they leave the discussion until the attention is all on my and I am in the defense.
-> afterthats I am not able to correct somethign or someone cause I am framed as the bad guy.
-> If I try to explain the situation, noone "wants to read through all that". Yeh thanks for nothing.
This happened by now about 4 times and I am full to the brim with taht non-sense. I used different stratgies, for example, avoiding said type of users which only leads them to make even more claims about me, sometimes even behind my back on the talkpage of another user they try to get on theri side (also happened I do not want to call names cause I do not want to escalate it further, but on request I could precisely tell you who is involved and where it happened).
If Wikipedia is not able to protect their editors from harassment, deframing, and such forms of injustice, I genuinely wan to quite. My goal here was to make religio-related articles as much neutral and scientific as possible, of course religious zealots (not the normal ones), hate this cause a lot of their zealous beleifs are build on fragile lies (like the awful discussion we recently had on Yahweh about the claim that Yahweh would not be deriving from a polytheistic pantheon). The majority of religious people are reasonable and wodnerful people, one reason more why I think we must not give in into people with religious biased views.
My conclusion on religious zealousy comes fromt he User's talkapge to be sanctined in participating in the Israel-Gaza war. This points at an emotional and personal involvement in matters of fights about religious matters. But it could also be something else. Strange however, were the edits on the Mephistopheles article I linked above, especialyl this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMephistopheles&diff=1317776866&oldid=1317773570 . Somehow this User has a clear image on what Islam is or how Islam is supposed to be. No matter what is said or what a source says, they always finds an excuse why it is not the case. Even if their own criteria are met, they change the goal post. Sometimes, they also add sources, which do not meet their own claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&diff=1317886917&oldid=1317861831
The source does not even mentioned Mosaic Law as we can figure out in the search system. The source only describe the process of Allah offering a revelation to Moses, which has never been contested. This confusion caused by Mike also leads to Ermenrich to entirely miss my point. I do not discuss with them, as they locked me in as the bad guy anyways already: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&diff=1319086136&oldid=1319053609
And yes, it is an obligation to remove misleading claims or to remove sources which do not back up claims, consensus does not matter, if that is the case and I will stand by that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
edit: another point which plays into Mike being actually doing religious or alt-right propaganda is them on "never playing defense", which was one of the main deceptions by the recently killed "debater" Charlie Kirk. Mike never replied to any of my objections, even here, you only see them accusing me of something but never taking responsibility for anything they did, said, or the things they were accused of. We need Users to take responsibility or less Wikipedia will step by step becoming a playgorund for spreading misinformation.
Btw, I see the discussion here is not advancing at the moment, so I will be heading out for today and porbably a few days. I have been very transparent about my delayed replies, even with Mike (who strangely always replied only after I announced me leaving, strange stange), so please, everyone, take the time to go through what is going on and waht is actaully said. Because Users who are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather push religious or alt-right narratives have become way to frequent in the last two years. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
They also deleted a comment from me linking to this AN thread, violating WP:TPO
Given their characteristic walls of text, amount of typos, and insistence on being right, I’m also prepared to describe the user as high maintenanceMikewem (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
do you have anything other than personal attacks? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm going through some of the diffs, for example this source addition from Mikewem. I found this source at Google Books but I'm not able to verify the claim on the given pages ("55–66"). Perhaps I missed it? If anyone can give the actual page that verifies this claim, I'd be happy to look again.
I also checked the removed claim in this diff against the source, also available at Google Books, and the source does say "Moses was in all likelihood a historical figure". It then goes into a variety of issues with the claims attributed to Moses, but none of that appears to undermine the supposed historicity of Moses.
The last thing I'll say is that any accusations of religious biases really should be accompanied by diffs. To my knowledge, the historicity of many figures from the Bible isn't doubted, and it's not a bias to say so. Of course, attributing supernatural abilities to them is another matter. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The historicity of Moses is uncertain. I mean, we can't even be sure that he did not exist, since the data is lacking. If he did exist, he is lost to the historical record. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I've done more research and it does appear that the majority of academic biblical scholars believe that Moses is likely mythical and was not a historical figure. At least that's what I'm seeing from a cursory reading of sources. I believe this has changed in the decades since I studied the subject in college. Interesting! Woodroar (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It’s a question of whether Schmid and Schröter said it in 2021, as we report they did. Verification confirms that they did say it in 2021. It’s possible we shouldn’t use this source for some other reason, but no other reason has been raised. Mikewem (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
VFF challenged the claim from the lead that “Mosaic Law” (or some reasonable synonym of it) is mentioned in the Quran. They did not challenge the same claim’s appearances in the body of the article at Moses#Islam. So I checked that the source does say what we claim it says, then copied the cite into the lead, due to VFF’s challenge. Pg 55 says “Moses is defined in the Quran as both prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul), the latter term indicating that he was one of those prophets who brought a book and law to his people.” Our article possibly plagiarizes this in this Islam section, and that sentence in our article should possibly be looked at. Mikewem (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Does that really verify the source, though? It's rather vague, "brought a book and law to his people". The statement in our article is very specific, "According to the Bible and Quran, God dictated the Mosaic Law to Moses, which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah". I think we should have a source that clearly and unambiguously supports this. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
“which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah” is not completely correct and should be changed. I suggested changing it here, but VFF objectedMikewem (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeh because the statement is not correct it should be changed. Your suggestion would have been made it worse. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
There is also the compelte text of the relevant passage. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that VenusFeuerFalle is showing some concerning behavioral and possible WP:CIR issues, which have now culminated in his bringing Mikewem to AN. I think we should focus on this sort of thing rather than the underlying content dispute. It could be that VenusFeuerFalle is right, but he certainly hasn't convinced the people editing at Moses that he is.
VenusFeuerFalle claimed that only one person had participated in the discussion, but he did so by only counting one part of the discussion , also here. I challenge anyone to look at the discussion at this point he was referring to and tell me that there was consensus for VenusFeuerFalle's changes (and note that his edit is not about the historicity of Moses at all)
Personal attacks I feel like I am surrounded my illiterate morons at this point
Anyone have a look at the talkpage at Talk:Moses and figure out what VenusFeuerFalle is arguing at any given point - he's subdivided the discussion into multiple parts and does not respond at the end. He is extremely repetitive, refuses to provide sources despite repeatedly being asked, and keeps insisting that he is right. It is very difficult to follow the enormous WP:WALLSOFTEXT that he keeps posting. He appears to be arguing two different things at once and is either unable or unwilling to untangle them - he uses the discussion of one to justify his edits to the other. It's all exceedingly confusing.
He keeps insisting he does not need consensus for his edits, resulting in a minor edit war, , , ,
I'm not going to say whether anyone else is behaving badly in this content dispute, but I have certainly not found VenusFeuerFalle to be great at coherently explaining his points or acting in ways that accord with the basic principles of Wikipedia editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Adding this personal attack from the edit war notice on their talk page: it cannot be that Users are free to spread their anti-intellectualism dogshit everywhereMikewem (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
yeh truth hurts... I mean, it just what it is and no we should not suggar coat people who are obviously deceptive and dishonest. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m alarmed that even in the midst of your own post at AN, you’re stilledit warringMikewem (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeh, cause as I said, it is allowed to revert lies. The source does not claim what you cited, so it is not even an edit war it is vandalism prevention. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
they are certainly not good faith, or explain to me why the user reverts my edits on a different article stating "it is not in the source" after I quoted in fact the source. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
my issue here is also not the matter of historicity of Moses, or the definition of Mosaic Law. My issue is the User. if you think as an admin (?) that there is nothing wrong with them, then Wikipedia simply isn't the communtiy anymore I want to belong to anyways. Too many valuable editors already left for exactly the same reasons I brought this to the notice board. If there is nothing to be done about the issue, and the community increasingly tolerates dishonesty, I do not want to participate in that community anymore anyways. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Also anti-intellectualism is a movement, not a comment on your IQ. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Referring to another editor as an anti-intellectualist is a personal attack. Consider this a once and final warning: your next personal attack will result in a block. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@The Bushranger: VFF’s preferred versions are all live at the three pages mentioned here. What is the correct venue to determine whether VFF gives accurate representations of what the sources say and whether these are acceptable sources to use? Is it at each respective talk page? Is it RSN? Do I need to do 3 RfCs at this point? Mikewem (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It is reading comprehension... VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright I will not describe anyone who pushes for Histroy Revisionism or employs clear strategies of anti-intellectual movements such as Charlie Kirk, Ben Shepiro, etc. as "anti-intellectuals". That being said, anti-intellecuals are in fact very intelligent, else they would not be able to undermine intelelctual institutions. But alright, you are the boss, even though I wonder why Mike does nto get a warning for calling me incompetent, which clearly is a personal attack. (biased?) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Even if you are right about Mosaic Law, you have to behave according to the rules imposed upon all Wikipedia editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I posted every single fucking rule and guidline but yeh sure I am the one who does not abide. Honestly, lets consider this discussion over. @Mikewem congrats have fun with spreading misinformation. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This post right here on AN encapsulates a lot of the problems that I have with VenusFeuerFalle's editing and talk page use on this issue. It is an unnecessarily long WP:WALLOFTEXT that ranges and rambles over various things that are far outside the actual point of this discussion (AN is not for discussing content - this goes for everyone). He accuses another editor of "religious zealousy (sic)" on flimsy pretenses - an WP:ASPERSION. He concludes by saying And yes, it is an obligation to remove misleading claims or to remove sources which do not back up claims, consensus does not matter, if that is the case and I will stand by that. - In other words, he does not feel the need to actually convince anyone of his point, so long as he "knows" that he is right. That's what he's failed to do repeatedly on talk:Moses - I can't speak to other articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I ams till not 'he' but it seems I just get ignored (again). basic human decency is obviously yesterday. My texts are nto hard to read, nowadays you can even ask a chatbot to summarize the key points. The accusations are also backed up. If I were not to convince anyone, I would not have writtent he so called "wall of text". But bringing one and one together is probably to hard.
But I can see when a real consensus emerges. I fought this sorts of misinformation for a year now. It was good as it lasted. Let the walls crumble, I ebt in 5 years you will find something like "criticism on evolution theory" based on Bible scholars in the Evolution article or something, with the citation that some biologists says it is only a model which will eb taken as evidence that "some biologists say it is not reality" and thus" it is disputed among scholars" or something like that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Lets close this discussion, I do not have the time or energy for this. I repeat myself for months, and this is not the first time I have to engage in unncessary discussions on my free-time just because I wanted to improve an open source knowledge webpage. I have better things to do. Good bye!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Block in violation of site's rules
Consensus is the pblock was valid. Cladeal832 subsequently indeffed for conduct during this discussion. Free to appeal for unblock via their userpage. Doesn't seem like anything left to resolve in this discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are other editors coming in to reword and revert my notice as it's hindering discussion. This isn't a vote on consensus. I'm making a formal complaint for admin review that my rights were violated since even if you take this edit war, admins are suppose to put a warning on the Talk Page before going to a block. Nor is my edits disruptive.
This is about edit made on September 9th so it wasn't an emergency. Suddenly within 24-hour period, an article that got next to no edits got a dump of editors insisting on reverting something that's been there for quite some time without making any contributions to a rather short article. This is Wikipedia:False consensus#Coordinated_actions. The user asked specific accounts who had nothing to do with this specific article which is inorganic to real discussion.Talk:Ella McCay#c-GoodDay-20251030192900-Premise That is was being discussed, but Cullen328 jumped in and blocked in the middle of the discussion. Even if you disagree with my actions, I was doing to the make the article better and the other editors have been throwing around accusations of unsourced, plagiarism, trivial, original research, lack of citation, citation behind a subscription paywall. There are probably others escaping at this point. Original research is meant to bar things like saying I have proof that the Moon landing was faked, this is the plot of an unreleased movie and some context Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader At this point is just silly since this is one sentence where most of the words is just titles of movies. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't an edit war of me just reverting over and over again to get my way. The other user was taken out material well-established in the article and in the middle in the discussion.
You were blocked for excessive edit-warring. Also nobody canvassed anyone. In fact, one might even argue, you were showing WP:OWN & WP:BATTLE behavior, at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Noting that all edit warring is considered excessive and WP:3RR is the hard line in the sand at which point participants may be immediately blocked to prevent further disruption, with no regard for who is right or wrong in a content dispute. From the policy "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block" Mfield (Oi!) 04:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) At a minimum, you made 9 reverts to a single article in a 24 hour period, well exceeding the bright linethree-revert rule, your reverts did not qualify for any of the 8 exceptions to 3RR. As an uninvolved editor my suggestion is to stop digging. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 04:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm contesting the block and the length. Cullen328 is subject to review as much as anybody else.
I was going to Talk Page and making my case and responding beyond the people who are just obsessing over me. For people going on and on consensus, the concept of discussion or another point of view seems to total mystery or source of frustration. I don't want to presume and also YOU edit war since nobody made you except one account kept reverting this so to get around the rules or a bunch of accounts with can't name three things on the upcoming movie "Ella McCay" are massively interested in it on this one single point that was being debating for days. I don't feel a block, let alone forever, is good faith since I've actually contributed uncontested parts of this article which nearly none these reverting accounts haven't done. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
What's more likely. A bunch of IP addresses suddenly were concerned about an edit made on Sept. 9th or one person was signing out of the user account and reverting over an IP address to avoid edit war tag and make a false consensus. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Cladeal832, from looking at the history there was exactly one IP involved (173.22.12.194), who has a fair number of contributions on their IP, which makes me think they are just a regular editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
One significant point about WP:CONSENSUS is that you don't get to continue to argue a point indefinitely once a majority concludes a point of debate is decided. You have to be able to accept that consensus and move on in order to be able to continue to edit in a community project. That applies as much to content as it does to community policies and standards of behavior. Not every edit you have made over time will survive more than a few minutes intact, that's the nature of Wikipedia and the terms you agree to as a contributor. The flip side is we routinely indefinitely block editors who are unwilling to accept those community policies as WP:NOTHERE, the project is built on collaborative collegial editing and it will survive better without editors who cannot work within that framework.Mfield (Oi!) 04:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The block is not forever. Indefinite is not infinite. The block is until we know you understand that the fact you were going to Talk Page and making my case and responding is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that you were at 9RR and you will never do this again. You are extremely fortunate you were only pblocked from the article and its talk page; many (perhaps even most) admins would have issued a full site-block (if perhaps not an indefinite one) upon seeing such egregious edit-warring. Also nobody has to be able to name three things to edit an article. I'd strongly suggest you step away from editing this article and go edit other things for awhile, re-establish the good faith your 9RR spree threw in the bin, and appeal the block much later when you can point to that re-established good faith as a reason anybody should believe that unblocking you won't simply result in a resumption of your edit-warring, - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
It fair to question why all these accounts and IP address who haven't edit this article and seem to have zero interest in the movie "Ella MacCay" flood into this discussion in mass action. It's not organic nor about what's best to the article. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
You're exhibiting an WP:OWN attitude again. The page block should remain. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Edit wars create instability, reports on noticeboards, and generate notifications in watch-lists and thus interest. It is not abnormal for an increased amount of activity on an article to attract more activity. Another reason why edit wars are a bad idea instead of reasoned talk page discussions, and why blocks are used to stop them. Mfield (Oi!) 04:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
At least three of the editors were almost certainly not canvassed, judging by the edit history. Rusted AutoParts and MikeAllen both edited the article before you, and I would assume they probably both had it on their watchlist; which would explain how they got to the article. As for 173.22.12.194, while IPs don't have watchlists, its also much more difficult for them to get canvassed in the first place (no email, no contact information unless they gave it out), they probably got to the article due to the post at this noticeboard; and by the timing of the edits Erik likely got to the article due to this noticeboard as well. Since I also got to the article due to a post on this noticeboard, that would leave two potential canvassed users; GoodDay and Ravenswing. Which I think its reasonable to assume good faith that they didn't get canvassed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I got to the article due to a post on this noticeboard; I've been an ANI frequent flyer for several years now, and in like fashion, GoodDay is active on ANI as well. Ravenswing 06:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I saw the Ella McCay "Premise" discussion happening in the related changes link here that I monitor. Erik(talk|contrib) 13:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't own the article and have accepted changes to it. It's not realistic to believe this much energy has been put into me. These accounts have written more about me than the whole of the Ella MacCay and seem perplexed that I keep bring it back to me and a massive concern for the edit history for this article which already has mostly me. That's not me claiming any ownership, but a fact that this is weird and concern that a bunch of random accounts who have zero interest in Ella MacCay, the topic of the article, swarm into total agreement anytime I made any edit including on an admin notice board where I haven't mentioned any of them. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that I have explained my reasoning for the pageblocks both on Cladeal832's talk page and on my own. If anyone else has questions for me, I will do my best to answer. As for the last point directly above, this is one of the most highly visible noticeboards on Wikipedia, and it is unsurprising that highly active and experienced editors "notice" what's going on at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
One, it's not your personal rationale, but you did not provide a warning. I know the rules on Blocking. You are suppose to put in a warning. If you are going to dish it out, you are also subject o rules you might like to follow as well and concequences for when you don't follow them. You didn't. Also Wikipedia own guidelines have "Wean in doubt, don't block" since don't expect the user to be grateful.
Two, the board has too much groundthink in general, but this pile it big even for this board and started even before any notice was posted. I engaged in the first notice, it was went nowhere so I figured I get a warning and because make my case then since the first one didn't up mattering. Also 3 notice boards for the article "Ella MacKay" is coordinated.
None of these random user have edited on Ella MacCay nor made a case that I damaged the actual article. Edit warring worked in September since it was so low interest. I tried to point about this wasn't a citation issue (which a lot of just assumed it was), but one guy writing it trivial and my take it was contextual WP:AUDIENCE. None of seemed aware the concept existed or it was very subjective take either way that couldn't site rules, yet one removed it lacking neutrality and another for linking to a site behind a paywall. It was weird.
This stuff with a bunch of new edits who have never cared about an edit I made on Sept. 9th happened long before the notice board Consensus is just random people (or specifically solicited users by one particular issue which happened and you didn't addressed despite a violation of the rules) just showing up in the Talk Page and voting without any engagement since the points they were making clearly showed they knew nothing about this movie and was pointed out, never responded. If you read the Talk Page of the article, I was in the middle of trying to be fruitful discussion with another user when you blocked me because of rando complains from people don't care the actual article. I keep bringing it back to "Ella MacCay" and the article since that the major emphasis on the consensus page rather than rando votes who come and then leave.
This is odd. Why are so many people massively interested in the edit history of Ella MacCay. Even for this noticed board, within 5 minutes there is more engagement on this then any topic. One the edit reverts was for somebody who claimed that I hadn't proven the state was unnamed without noticing it's mentioned in another part off the article. I've never had this much interested in an edit before and clearly coordinated. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
If you continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS as in your last two posts above, you will be blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
"have accepted changes to it" is just not true. The fact you've reverted nine editors, spanning over a month, to revert any attempt to remove a sentence from the premise section, shows this. You would even then in edit summaries proclaim your restoration of the sentence "as per talk page" as if an agreement was reached or you were successful in demonstrating to any of us were wrong about the removal. You would revert people simply tagging the sentence for issues. It's not "weird" for people to see your edits and take exception. I created the page, so it's on my watchlist. Editors like Bovineboy and MikeAllen regularly edit articles in the film field, so they likely looked in on the page through that. No canvassing was committed. Because, namely a vote was not being conducted, no poll, a mere pinging to inform editors you reverted or previously chimed in that the discussion was occurring should they have anything to add in. It's profound bad faith to assert that it was a canvass job to try and outnumber you. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
What is "weird" is that you've been on Wikipedia for as long as you have and not get how significant parts of it work. For instance, I came across this quote directed towards you: "Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter whether you are reverting the "same or different material". You've been editing for 15 years and have made over 11,000 edits and aren't familiar with basic Wikipedia policies? I find that hard to believe." That was from the ANI archive in July 2021. You've pushed similar riffs on the 3RR noticeboard, both in 2016 and 2023, when you claimed it was alright to break 3RR because you were right and everyone else was wrong. It should not be news to you, after having been brought up several times on noticeboards, that uninvolved editors notice, check things out, and make their own opinions known. Long time admin Black Kite wondered in 2021 whether your persistent refusal to grasp 3RR or how consensus works here was a competency issue, and I'm wondering that myself now. Ravenswing 06:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
endorse block.@Cladeal832: That we have no interest in the article in question means we can assess the situation neutrally and objectively. In my opinion, your behavior at the article and on this ANI thread leaves the impression that you're not compatible with a collaborative project like this one.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, what Ravenswing said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block, noting that in my view the block is lenient. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I suppose Cladeal832 would view me as an involved editor at this point, so I won't formally endorse the block, but I agree that it's lenient. There's been many an editor with similar views about their inalienable right to edit war at will, took no lessons from multiple blocks for the same, and wound up with community bans for their pains. While the smart thing would be to learn from this and respect Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring, consensus and casting aspersions, the smart thing would've been to learn that a decade ago after the first such block. I expect we'll be right back here in time. Ravenswing 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Noted. I might propose a WP:1RR restriction for OP later. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block: Cladeal832, you have been on Wikipedia for two decades and have made over 10,000 edits. You've been blocked for edit-warring before. You ought to be well aware that you should not get into a situation where you are edit-warring alone against seven different people. You shouldn't be making nine reverts on an article in the space of 24 hours. You say in opening this thread that admins are supposed to put a warning on the Talk Page before going to a block; in fact WP:BLOCK explicitly says that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. As an experienced editor, you are expected to know that this level of edit-warring is unacceptable; you had been warned both on your talkpage and on the article talkpage that you could be blocked and you went on to make several further reverts. You continued to edit war after two separate ANI threads were opened about your behaviour on this article. There was every reason for Cullen to believe that you were well aware that you were edit-warring and did not need any further warnings. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block - and agree that, in fact, it's quite lenient. This user needs to get a clue and get it fast. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block - Exceedingly generous block given that an editor with this much history on Wikipedia has basically no excuse to not know how consensus works or what edit warring means. The ease in which this editor imagines misconduct from others and makes accusations is especially concerning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block. Too lenient, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block Also agree with it being too lenient; after almost 20 years the user should have more wiki-experience than he has shown here. Lectonar (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block Who ever said pre-block warnings are mandatory? Cullen has given you plenty of WP:ROPE. –Muboshgu(talk) 16:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite duration. Appealable after one year and every year thereafter. In this thread, OP's own words make the need clear. We have WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, WP:BLUDGEONing, a lack of WP:AGF, and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. CoffeeCrumbs says it best."... an editor with this much history on Wikipedia has basically no excuse to not know how consensus works or what edit warring means. The ease in which this editor imagines misconduct from others and makes accusations is especially concerning." A 1RR restriction should draw a bright line that is clear to Cladeal823 and should deter further disruption.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
To brief recap you are writing as you are both proposing this and then also voting on it. That's just redundant. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
No it is not redundant. Just because someone proposes a restriction does not mean they want to !vote for it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Those editors all were involved in the content disagreement. Of course they should be pinged. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I am not sure this restriction would properly address the issues. The only thing this would solve is the edit warring, and the other issues wouldn't be solved by this restriction. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Moot now. I was trying to be lenient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
INDEFFed
I have indefinitely blocked Cladeal832 after the continued disruption here, especially with the latest response immediately above. Leaving this note to serve as documentation that should they be unblocked, the p-blocks may need to be reimposed depending on the unblock discussion. StarMississippi 16:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Well done. I was in the middle of responding to that last comment, which demonstrates how profoundly Cladeal832 either does not get it or doesn't give a damn. Ravenswing 16:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Endorse indef. I had hoped to avoid this with a simple one RR restriction, however, as someone wise once said, "when you're walking on eggshells, don't hop." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Regrettably, he'll likely continue to protest on his own talkpage:( GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Read over his talkpage. At this point (IMHO) it's no longer a competency issue. He's simply trolling. An administrator will likely soon 'block' their talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Word of caution. Cladeal832 has (many years ago) been blocked for sock-puppetry. Let's hope, he doesn't re-take that route. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Quite a few editors thought that my initial pageblocks were too lenient. Consider this: the editor's response right here and on their talk page to a very narrowly crafted sanction made it crystal clear to everyone that there is a much more serious problem with this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think anyone's casting shade on you. Leaning towards the side of lenience is surely preferable than the alternative. Ravenswing 03:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Lenience, or forbearance if you will, was the right course of action at the time. It's not your fault, Cullen, that it proved it to be inadequate in the long run. It is the preferred response. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
leniency is always the better course of action. Many editors do learn from it and become better editors for it - this just wasn't the case here (yet) StarMississippi 14:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
There will always be those who make us regret a decision and question our judgement, and lose confidence. I have learned through bitter experience to eventually shake it off and persevere. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I think I was the first to say lenient, but did not mean that to be a reflection on the blocking admin, as shown by my endorsement of the block, which was indeed unanimously endorsed. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove PCR. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Killing of Ahmed Abu Mutair
Issues addressed, thanks for raising. StarMississippi 16:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Killing of Ahmed Abu Mutair is a newly created article that I'm guessing is most likely subject to some kind of editing restrictions and discretionary sanctions. The article's talk page has yet to be created and I wondering whether someone who's familiar with articles about contentious topics could add all the necessary templates (including whatever WikiProject banners might apply) to the talk page. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this after checking the infobox image and have no familiarity with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Request has been placed at WP:RFPP already and the template {{ARBPIA}} has been added to the talk page. I marked it as falling under BLP for now since the event was fairly recent. -- Reconrabbit 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Indef ECP per ARBPIA. In the future, simply posting at RFPP will suffice. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I've also created the edit notice, so I think that covers all of the preemptive measures: protection, talk banner, and edit notice. Left guide (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for Removal of BLP-Violative Content from Wikipedia Article on Vipin Vijay (Vipin Vijay)
In lieu of BLPN thread which they opened first and where an admin can weigh in StarMississippi 16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Urgent:
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
My name is Divin Haridas, I am a media professional and a citizen of India. I came across this page regarding the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” on his Wikipedia page (Vipin Vijay), which refers to an allegation involving filmmaker Vipin Vijay. The content in question constitutes a serious violation of Indian law as well as Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy.
The matter cited is currently under inquiry at his workplace – the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), Kolkata, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. As far as I know Mr Vipin Vijay has initiated legal proceedings against Mid-Day, the publication quoted as the source of this section, at the High Court of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, for publishing defamatory material, disclosing his identity, and falsifying facts pertaining to the ongoing inquiry. ‘Bengal info’ which is quoted by the Wikipedia(30) has carried news by the Times of India which themselves they removed by now after filed legal notice.
Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), India, disclosure of the names or details of either the complainant or the respondent is strictly prohibited.
. Section 16 mandates absolute confidentiality, forbidding the publication, disclosure, or dissemination of any material related to a sexual harassment complaint or inquiry. It expressly prohibits revealing the identity of the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or any aspect of the proceedings to unauthorized persons or the public. Disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is also explicitly barred.
• Section 17 prescribes penal consequences for any breach of confidentiality, holding all persons involved in the inquiry or its administration, including institutional authorities and media entities, statutorily liable for disciplinary or legal sanctions.
Since the matter referred to in the article is sub judice and currently under official inquiry by a disciplinary committee , the publication of his name and related details amounts to a breach of statutory confidentiality punishable under Indian law. The continued presence of this content on Wikipedia therefore directly contravenes both the POSH Act and Wikipedia’s own editorial and privacy standards.
Wikipedia’s governing policies reinforce this legal position:
• WP:BLP – Biographies of Living Persons
• WP:OUTING – Privacy and Identification
• WP:BLPCRIME – Presumption of Innocence and Naming in Alleged Crimes
These policies clearly state that serious or controversial allegations must not name living persons unless the matter has been conclusively adjudicated and widely reported in reliable sources with due sensitivity.
The cited Mid-Day article (relied upon as a source) is demonstrably unreliable and factually incorrect. It falsely claims:
• That there are “multiple sexual harassment victims,” including a student and two faculty members, which is untrue – the complainant is neither a student nor a faculty member of SRFTI.
• That he has been “sacked” or “removed” from his position as Dean,whereas he continues to serve as Dean (https://srfti.ac.in/leadership/) and remains a Group A Officer, Government of India. No removal is possible under Indian service law unless a disciplinary inquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has been concluded and its recommendations implemented. The investigation in his case is ongoing, and no report or recommendation has yet been made.
• That the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta “refused to be involved” in the matter – a falsehood, as the Court expressly directed the Institute to conclude the inquiry while restraining any coercive action against him pending submission and review of the final report.
Given the above, i respectfully requests that the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” be immediately removed to ensure compliance with both Indian statutory confidentiality provisions and Wikipedia’s BLP, Outing, and BLPCRIME policies.
I appreciate the editors’ prompt attention to this serious violation and their cooperation in restoring legal and policy compliance to this article.
Note that Divin Haridas has an undisclosed conflict of interest. This is not a comment with regard to anything listed above. --Yamla (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Divin Haridas If you are alleging a violation of the law, you should communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. https://wikimediafoundation.org/contact/331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Note that OP has also posted the above at WP:BLPN, receiving one response so far, and on their own talk page. NebY (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Heads up on potential issues in future
In the wake of Larry Sanger's Nine Thesis (which were discussed to death at VPM) the WaPost published this piece that interviews him extensively. Of note if at the end which has this statement:
Instead, he said, he is working to enlist hundreds of conservatives in the United States and abroad to become active Wikipedia editors, working in concert to revise articles on such topics as the Israel-Gaza war, Hindu nationalism in India, the safety of vaccines and the causes of climate change.
“Nothing is stopping us,” Sanger said. “All of us who feel like we have been shut out of Wikipedia, driven away over the years — I think it’s a good idea that we spend a few months, a season, on Wikipedia and see what can happen.”
Nothing to suggest this is happening yet, but I can such a project becoming disruptive, and should be a concern for us as admins. Masem (t) 20:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate you sharing this information but I caution against going any further than this. Organized activity to address Sanger's claims (which is all they are right now) just serves to confirm the groundless prejudices that exist that Sanger is referring to. Don't let fears cause anyone here to overreact. Who knows, if some new editors abide by our policies and guidelines, we could gain some competent new editors. Let's not create an us vs. them mentality here which is what Sanger claims exist but actual editors know that the environment here is much more complex than that. LizRead!Talk! 23:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Sure, but if start to see abnormal/disruptive, coordinated activity on those pages in the topic areas given, we should be aware this method might be a possible vector. Absolutely should AGF even when a new editor is adding controversial material otherwise. Masem (t) 23:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Ideological diversity is good. Not sure there's much room for greater weight to minority POVs in our coverage of the safety of vaccines or the causes of climate change, but on political issues like Israel/Palestine and Indian politics we always benefit from having editors on multiple sides of an issue, even if one side is more in line with what the RS say. If nothing else they're a good check against articles being written like opinion pieces for the other side, rather than factually presenting a narrative that happens to align with the other side. If Sanger's acolytes can follow our content and conduct policies and guidelines, then they're welcome here. If they can't, we have a pretty robust structure in place to deal with disruption in these kinds of topic areas, at this point. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I suggest to monitor policy related pages, as part of the recently proposed "theses" could weaken the security of the encyclopedia in ways that could facilitate coordinated troll farms. There also is apparent pressure against editors with the checkuser right (who do not dictate article content, but are vital for SPI) to reveal their identity. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
206.248.143.75, that comment about pressure being applied to our checkusers is something I haven't seen mentioned. Did you see this at an off-Wikipedia site or is it just a rumored possibility of what could happen? Checkusers already get an unfair amount of harassment from blocked, former editors, they don't need anything more that is based in specific political points-of-view. I hope this is just a "what could happen" fear right now. LizRead!Talk! 00:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"I hereby call upon each of the persons responsible for these 62 accounts to accept personal responsibility and reveal their names and identities to the public—or resign."206.248.143.75 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Bot running into abuse filters
Hi, I was doing the test run for User:MatrixBot, and ran into an abuse filter. Since the task isn't approved I don't have the bot flag. Please could someone give EC so I don't run into filters? —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please remove the rights. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the user rights from both accounts (it appears as though you listed a duplicate account here). Fathoms Below(talk) 15:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know this is a few days old, but just noting for anyone else reading this that vanished accounts are normally always globally locked (and these were). That means their userrights are irrelevant, since a locked account cannot do anything at all, I don't think you can even log into it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Bad RM closure by probable POV editor and possible block evasion
Please take a look at Jaybainshetland's closure (diff) at Talk:Shaetlan Language#Requested move 16 October 2025. There was no consensus for this move and the RM had just been relisted. Jaybainshetland moved the page to an alternative title that had not been discussed and that violates WP:SENTENCECASE. I inquired about the closure and move on their talk page and their response indicated that failure to acknowledge opposition to the move was an honest mistake. They submitted a technical request to move the title to Shaetlan, which is not a satisfactory outcome. I have contested the technical request at WP:RM/TR (permalink). Jaybainshetland's name indicates they may be a POV editor with respect to Shetland topics. Additionally, while on their user talk page to ask about the RM I saw a history that suggested prior block evasion. The page move should be undone and the RM should be re-opened. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Fixed link to RM. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
They also admitted in their response to me i am personally in support of the move, an obvious supervote. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I've re-opened the RM. I'm not especially worried about the block evasion; the unblock request would have been accepted had Mshoolie submitted it, and the response gave them tacit permission to keep editing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reopening this and taking a look! —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I apologised and am quite happy for you to reopen the discussion as I definitely closed it without better judgement.
But scrolling through my page and bringing up block evasion due to some issues on mshoolie (an account i had as a child) which have already been dealt with on my talk page. Really?
I’ll assume good faith, but it seems a bit below the belt if i’m being honest. I’m not trying to have a go at you, but please remember WP:CLEANSTART.
Pointing out that you are, in fact, a blocked editor is hardly "a bit below the belt." It doesn't seem like anyone so far has chosen to enforce it, but the fact of it still exists. WP:CLEANSTART is only available to accounts in good standing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, except i’m not a blocked editor, i was given permission to keep editing and am doing my best to contribute productive edits.
Maybe learn to leave the past in the past? Jaybainshetland (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Unblocks usually aren't simply implied, so it's perfectly reasonable to inquire further. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Again, leave the past in the past!
I’m not talking any more about this as it’s getting petty… Jaybainshetland (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Your attitude makes me think perhaps a block for block evasion/socking is called for. Definitely your claims to have matured since your block seems questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
New clerks (October 2025)
The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome the following editors to the clerk team as trainees, effective immediately:
The arbitration clerk team is grateful to everyone who applied. We are often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: automatic abstentions for non-votes
The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to allow automatic abstentions for arbitrators who have not voted, under certain conditions. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97(talk) 23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Proposed temporary adminning restriction on UtherSRG
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to impose the proposed restriction. This means that if action is (still) deemed necessary, a referral to ArbCom is the only way forward. Sandstein 13:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
We've arrived at a situation without precedent concerning admin conduct during the admin recall process. UtherSRG has had a recall petition certified against him, and plans to seek reelection in the next admin elections (which means he will remain an administrator for at least 51 days), but during this pendency has again violated the same admin policies that led to multiple successive noticeboard threads and ultimately the recall petition, and has refused to self-revert.
Namely, the main complaint in the recall petition was a series of WP:INVOLVED blocks, particularly regarding people Uther had content disputes with on species articles (a topic area he also was blocked a few times for edit-warring in long ago). One involved block that was overlooked in those threads (AFAICS) was that of 2605:59C0:20C0:3E08::/64, which came immediately after Uther reverted two of its edits to Pygmy rabbit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views), an article he has edited substantively starting in 2006 and continuing after his block of the IP. While the recall petition was ongoing, a different IP, 2601:346:900:C690::/64, made the same edit; two minutes after the recall petition was closed, Uther protected the article with the summary IP hopper repeatedly making the same reverted edit. (The edit had also been reverted once by Criticize with the first IP and once by Reconrabbit with the second.) Per GreenLipstickLesbian's analysis, while the reverts may have been justifiable, this was a content dispute concerning good-faith edits using a term found in reliable sources; while some kind of "communication is required" block or protection might have been justified, it would have needed to come from an uninvolved admin (and personally I don't think I would have done so). Sockpuppetry might bring the protection into "any reasonable admin" territory, except that the initial block was itself INVOLVED, and I'm not actually convinced the two IPs are the same person—Starlink geolocation isn't that reliable, but at face value it puts them on different sides of the U.S., and 2605 is near-exclusively species-oriented while 2601 isn't.
GLL has challenged Uther on this action, and his response does not show any understanding that this is yet another INVOLVED action, instead giving a response that blurs his role as an editor of the article and as an admin, and saying I find it very difficult to consider what people think about my admin actions vice providing stability to an article, which seems like a rejection of WP:ADMINACCT. Asilvering has seconded this challenge, and Uther has continued to edit without response. As such, I do think some kind of intervention is needed. I don't like saying that, because I've always had pleasant interactions with Uther, but this is a problem that does not seem to be stopping on its own.
If I were able to partially block Uther from making blocks or protections, I would, but that's not one of the available pblock settings. I considered a siteblock, and considered taking this to ArbCom, but I think the path of least resistance here is a temporary community-imposed restriction, to stabilize the situation so that AdE voters can decide for themselves in December. Therefore I propose the following:
Until the conclusion of the December 2025 admin elections, UtherSRG is banned from using the block and protect tools, except to reverse or reduce previous blocks or protections he has made. Any violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.
Support. I'm not sure how else to stop the involved tool use. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Need to patch the problem here, December is still a while away. CNC (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Either this is worth taking to Arbcom for a WP:LEVEL2, or it can wait a month-ish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Such a restriction doesn't seem conducive to being able to accurately evaluate Uther's behavior between now and the admin elections, which is already under a lot of scrutiny and will probably continue to be as much. Protection isn't used often, and while the change to African pygmy mouse could be overzealous, the same to European mole seemed fine. -- Reconrabbit 19:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:HOLES. We can always revert. Popcorn anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would like to note that Uther has ~48 days to get his act together until the discussion phase for AELECT begins, where his actions will be looked through for one last time until the vote phase, where his fate will be determined. (Non-administrator comment) fanfanboy(blocktalk) 21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Sarek. The line of least resistance if an admin is running amok is an email to Arbcom for a level 2 desysop. Am not aware of evidence that Arbcom is too slow or unwilling to act when these kind of actions are warranted. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. We've forced Uther to make a request to remain an admin (We really need a word that encompasses retaining adminship via RRFA and EFA...) If he makes good blocks in the interim, why is it a problem? If he makes bad blocks in the interim, I don't think this makes it likelier for ARBCOM to desysop under level 2. I stand by what I said at BN, which is that a temporary desysop is the way around this. I'm working on such a proposal but won't be upset if I'm pre-empted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been pinged, so I feel I ought to respond, but I'm of pretty mixed and ambivalent feelings. I'd like to be able to agree with Reconrabbit. I don't know that I can. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Vanamonde93. This proposal is not completely unreasonable, but it is speculative. What the admin is saying is a little troubling, but that's ultimately part of why they have been recalled. The admin has done essentially nothing since being recalled. As others have said, should that change, a block or desysop would be available. Arcticocean■ 12:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as above - sensible proposal in theory, but let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA... GiantSnowman 12:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I don't understand the process, here. If he's been recalled, then why is he still an administrator? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Because he has time to resign the bit or to seek reconfirmation at an RRFA or to stand in an election. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
It's the equivalent of telling someone they're fired but giving them time to clear out their desk. Versus the Arbcom route which fires you and then has security escort you out. -- Euryalus (talk)|
It doesn't in my book. For my area, the first half of RECALL is a petition and the second half is an election. Someone creates a proposal and passes it around in an attempt to get the signatures required for the proposal to appear in the next election. If it succeeds, then (as long as the state legislature does not intervene) the proposal is added to the next scheduled election to be voted on. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair enough interpretation, and I guess is what happens on de-wiki which our model is based on. On observing the way recall works on en-wp the petition itself is the definitive step. No problems with that: different wikis different customs. But apologies for sidetracking this overall thread, this is probably better discussed at the recall talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Short version: successful recalls require the admin in question to commit to a re-election within 30 days. If they don't, at the end of the 30 days their tools are removed by the bureaucrats. In Uther's case, as the December adminstrator elections are only a very short time after the expiration of that 30 days, there's a general mood in the community that they would be allowed to run for (re-)election as part of it instead of a seperate RRfA. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. While the opposes above make reasonable arguments, my counterargument is thus: let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA - we already have. The recall was because of repeated instances of this exact behavior; enough WP:ROPE has already been expended to tie up a small elephant. They have demonstrated, thoroughly, that they either do not intend to change their ways, or cannot; while requesting an emergency dysospping as suggested might be an option at this point, until or unless that is done, this is still a viable, and sadly reasonable given the demonstrated behavior, option. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - mostly for his own sake - as The Bushranger says, we've been here before. And, I don't know, maybe I've been influenced too much by the afterschool specials of my childhood, but at this point I'm convinced that the only way UtherSRG will be able to admin in the future is if the community forces him to spend a bit of time relying on his words when dealing with editors he doesn't agree with, rather than letting him take shortcuts with advanced permissions. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards support for the sake of ensuring that the block/protect tools can no longer be used while they are under the cloud of the recall, but given how we are about a month from the election, I'm not sure how effectively this proposal will be in practice. Even if this RFC is able to find consensus for support (which given Bush and GLL's !votes above I could see happening), that could take days or a few weeks to form, which closes the gap until the election when the community would decided whether they still trust their tool use. In the event that we need to invoke this and bring ArbCom into this, it's possible that the election happens before ArbCom makes a decision making this moot (unless the election results in them keeping adminship but ArbCom later decides to revoke them), but I'm not too knowledgeable on how long ArbCom would need to act on something like this. Gramix13 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Arbcom can act very quickly (a day or two?) to a level 2 desysop request. But it would probably require more evidence of tool misuse than has been presented here, which is possibly why no request has been made. That's not a criticism of the successful recall, simply that the criteria are slightly different. An admin can lose the community's trust and be fired without necessarily also meeting Arbcom's emergency standard for inappropriate use of the tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
To start, I made MOS:LISTGAP changes to resolve LISTGAP concerns - specifically removing blank lines and changing all indents to start with an asterisk. I'm making that clear since this edit will contain that along with this reply. On that note, I slightly oppose this - though I don't think Tamzin is wrong to have suggested this. Others have made the arguments I would've made - to summarize however, if it's this urgent, then WP:LEVEL2 is thataway. If it's not that urgent at this time, then I don't think there's any community action needed. WP:HOLES has already been referenced, and I agree with that - if this admin wishes to keep digging their hole, let's let them. Any harm they may cause (i.e. if they keep digging their hole through improper blocks/etc) can be quickly reversed by any other admin. Even if this admin may not qualify for L2 procedures right now, they are always available and I suspect ArbCom will be quite willing to consider L2 removal if this admin engages in any egregious conduct between now and their admin election. Any editor should be free (as always) to request L2 procedures if they feel this conduct (or future conduct) merits it. But if it doesn't rise to the level of meriting L2 removal, then I don't think this sort of community restriction is merited.Either conduct rises to the level of recall or ArbCom deadminship (whether through level 1 or 2), or it doesn't. The community has decided that, if something doesn't rise to the level of L1/2 deadminship via ArbCom, that the current recall process is how it should work. The current recall process does not provide any method for the community to restrict/remove admin tools pending the RRFA/election. And I don't think it's fair to the admin to attempt to restrict them just because they've been recalled. If the community thinks that there should be some means for us (the community) to restrict an admin from using some/all tools, or to deadmin them entirely pending the completion of the RRFA or election, then we should form policies and guidelines allowing for that sort of temporary deadminship/restriction of tool usage - whether after a recall succeeds or otherwise (i.e. without any recall). But if not, then we should continue with the current process and pursue ArbCom L1/2 if necessary, otherwise allow them to keep the tools regardless.. To have a separate form of community restriction on an admin using the tools outside of recall/L1/2 strikes me as unfair to that admin, since there's not any community consensus (that I'm aware of) for such restrictions on an admin (whether recalled or not).I also have concerns over how this would be enforced. Is there any evidence that ArbCom would even care if an admin violated this sort of restriction? Would ArbCom consider a violation of this sort of restriction grounds for L2 desysop? If they would, what conditions do ArbCom have on what sort of community restriction like this they would consider for L2? And ultimately, is ArbCom L2 desysop procedures (the only method by which this could be enforced) proper to enforce this sort of restrictions? Hence my slight opposition - at a minimum, I would want ArbCom guidance on what would be necessary for this sort of a community restriction to "stick" (i.e. warrant L2 desysop if it's violated), and confirmation that they would perform a L2 desysop if a community restriction that was imposed in line with whatever guidance they give as to what is necessary for such a restriction to "stick". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me|talk to me! 08:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez, why do you think this couldn't be enforced except by arbcom? One presumes tamzin's intent is that it would be enforced the same way basically every community restriction is enforced - by blocks, if violated. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Would a block prevent from using the block/protect buttons? My understanding is that it would not, hence requiring ArbCom action if it continued to be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me|talk to me! 18:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
A block prevents an admin from blocking anyone other than the admin who blocked them (an option that's left intact to avoid a situation where a rogue admin blocks everyone and has the run of the place). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I will note that Tamzin's proposal says Any violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.; personally I would have opted to have it treated as a de facto topic ban, but either way this is necessary, however it is enforced. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't mean that at the exclusion of a block to enforce; that's within any admin's powers if necessary to prevent another admin from violating policy, with or without a restriction on tool use. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - Surprised this is not universally-agreed. Uther has clearly made a series of bad blocks, protections, etc., enough to start multiple noticeboard threads and quickly get 25 recall sigs. Of course they shouldn't keep using the tools. And to say we should give them a chance to show what they can do with the tools before RFA or election... seriously? I don't want to risk bad blocks in order to prove what we already knew before the recall. There is a cost to the bad tool use, and the cost is editors. Uther can wait a month before using the tools again. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Levivich, at least some of the not-universal-agreement is because some think an interim desysop is in order. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I don't understand why those folks would oppose this proposal, because an interim desysop (de facto) is what's being proposed. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The proposal is only based on using "block and protect tools", with exceptions. It's not based on all admin tools which would be the equivalent of a desysop. CNC (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I still would think that people who support a full desysop should also support a partial desysop. This is like when people oppose a warning because it doesn't go far enough. My view is: support the warning, also support the stronger action, but support the lesser actions, too, rather than oppose them. Others have a different view of these situations. To each their own! Levivich (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my feeling was that the one strike here post-petition (plus the refusal to self-revert when challenged) was enough to justify a restriction on tool use, but that it would probably take two strikes to get an ArbCom consensus to desysop. Letting someone retain access to the tools essentially in hopes that they'll misuse them and get level-2'd (which is the subtext or outright stated intent of a lot of the opposition here) seems both cruel to Uther and to unfairly treat the use of admin tools as a kind of game in which we're not worried about the effect on individual editors and articles. Thus I do stand by this proposal. If a second strike comes, I'm fully prepared to take this to ArbCom, and to block ad interim if necessary, but to me that's the uglier way to do it. Maybe it's that I came of age in the era when admins still semi-regularly blocked one another, and that I've taken three desysops through ArbCom and lived to tell the tale, but neither is a pretty thing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Levivich, I do broadly agree with "support the lesser action in addition to the stronger action" as a general principle, but I'm not sure it quite applies here. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but part of my own mixed feelings on this is that I think this is a good example of how our current recall process is not truly fit for purpose. We've only so far had one recall that "worked", in the sense that a petition a) succeeded (or failed "as intended" by running out of time at 30 days, though this other intended outcome hasn't happened yet), b) proceeded to an RRFA, and c) that RRFA concluded, having found the consensus of the community. The other "recalled" admins have all been resignations - fair enough, but not really a test of the recall system as designed. At present, we don't really know if Uther has the backing of the community either way; we can only suspect, based on the outcome of the petition. And since the predominant opinion at the current RFC on recall appears to be "it's working fine", well. We appear to have a pretty strong consensus that admins should keep their tools unless arbcom gets involved. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support How ridiculous. The time period between the recall certification and Election was an opportunity to prove they've learned from the mistake, instead they proved again they can't be trusted with the tools. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose and refer to Arbcom per WP:LEVEL2. UtherSRG is performing admin actions in a situation where they are involved, several administrators have suggested that they should not (thus removing the "any admin would do the same" exception), a recall petition has been certified regarding this behaviour, yet UtherSRG persists in performing these challenged actions. Also as I understand it, a blocked account with admin permissions can still use the tools, just not to unblock themselves. This is therefore a WP:LEVEL2 situation: "Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behavior is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming." Both conditions are true here, and there is no appropriate response available to the community or its administrators. Send it to Arbcom, this is what the emergency procedures are for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the only action a blocked admin can take is to block the admin that blocked them. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support It's best for the encyclopedia if UtherSRG waits until after the admin elections before using the tools again. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth noting that Uther has not blocked or page-protected since this thread was opened. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the past several months, checkusers have been collaborating with Wikimedia Foundation staff on a new tool called Special:SuggestedInvestigations, or SI (documented in part at mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Anti-abuse signals/Suggested Investigations). The collaboration was sparked by a mutual understanding between CUs and staff that the CheckUser tool was becoming outclassed due to the decline in usefulness of IP and user agent information. SI is a work in progress and is very much in the beta stages, but it has shown great promise in identifying abuse in a very short period of time.
SuggestedInvestigations works much like the existing abuse filter in log-only mode, except the conditions are managed by WMF rather than by volunteers. SI runs against certain non-public information, and is accessible only to CUs and stewards on a few wikis, including the English Wikipedia. Right now, there are only a very small number of signals in the tool, but staff and volunteers are working together to add additional signals over time, based on our experience investigating abuse. The WMF mentioned in their blog post on hCaptcha that that is one of the signals, but otherwise, like private abuse filters, other signals will stay private for BEANS reasons.
Over the past month since the tool rolled out, the CU team has found it valuable for detecting abuse. The captcha signal has allowed us to respond quickly to semi-automated subtle spambots. Another signal has helped us better detect long-term abuse cases returning to the project.
Since we're talking about private signals, we would like to allay some fears the community may have. SuggestedInvestigations only acts as a sign that a volunteer should take a look at an account’s edits. A signal being tripped is neither, by itself, a valid reason to run a check nor a reason to block an account. Behavioral evidence will continue to be needed for both. SuggestedInvestigations is not fishing – it is raising things to look at that we may not have noticed any other way.
Redirect creation request for the page "2001 (Dr. Dre album)": "Bitch Niggaz", "Bi*** Ni**az", "Pause for Porno", "Pause For Porno"
These titles are blacklisted, so I'm requesting here. "Bitch Niggaz" is a real song from the album, the official censored title is "Bi*** Ni**az". "Pause for Porno" and "Pause For Porno" are alternate title variants for the song name "Pause 4 Porno". Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I've created Bitch NiggazBitch Niggaz. The other three aren't blacklisted. (Maybe there's an edit filter? I didn't try to save.) —Cryptic 17:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Replacement of CSD U5
Just a note for any CAT:CSD admins that WP:U5 has been repealed and replaced with two related but somewhat different criteria, WP:U6 and WP:U7. The upshot is that procedural deletion of user subpages is now a thing, merits-based deletion for off-topic content will continue to be a thing but be much rarer, and issues with top-level userpages will now be handled by blanking, subpagification/draftification, or deletion other under criteria as appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Replacement of CSD U5 FAQ for more information. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Gah. My inner Aspie hates change -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Yes. There has been no change to how any of the G-series criteria apply to userspace: G1 and G2 still don't; all the others still do. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The FAQ says so, but it's not clear as my clear spam under a promotional name, could be someone else's draft article. Secretlondon (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Something being potentially a draft, and thus ineligible for U7, is separate from whether it meets G11. Lots of drafts meet G11. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I think @Chaotic Enby was working on something. In the meantime, the Twinkle-addicted among us have the option of checking "custom rationale" and writing in WP:U6 or WP:U7 as applicable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Yep, and doing a custom select for U7 since it's a multiple option thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin, I haven't read the information yet, but I'll tell you what I see a lot of and you can't tell me if there is a CSD criteria that fits them. I come across a lot of original content on User pages, content like short stories, diary entries, songs, letters, poems, fan fiction etc., and have used CSD U5 for these pages when they have otherwise fit this criteria. What would happen for these kind of pages? LizRead!Talk! 22:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Liz: Under the changed procedures, these pages will usually be deleted procedurally under U6 after six months of no edits, the same as would happen in draftspace. If they avoid deletion on that basis because someone keeps editing the page, the things you describe are all eligible under U7 starting six months after creation (rather than after last edit). This does not preclude deletion under G-series criteria (just earlier I tagged an alternate-history sandbox with G3 as a hoax), or taking pages to MfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
But we can also move them to a user subpage or draftspace, which is a good parking spot for that stuff.
I'm thinking of putting together a proposal as a follow-on to these changes that would require a templated heading for Wikipedia-like user pages that would make it clear they're not official articles (e.g., {{Userspace draft}}). —rsjaffe🗣️ 22:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
There's going to be a large amount of inappropriate content added by our youngest and most vunerable editors sitting around that doesn't meet WP:OS criteria but really makes it apparent they are very young. It shouldn't be moved anywhere, and MfD just shines more light on it, which should be avoided. U5 was a good tool for this as it's better to delete the content and have a kind word than to blank it. I understand that U5 was overused, but it did give admins discretion to remove clearly inapprorpiate, PII-adjacent content quickly and quietly. I guess I'll go back to IAR/BLPDELETE for these types of situations.-- Ponyobons mots 22:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Ponyo, I meant to include personal information as well. I also see original content like stories about people editors go to school with. Basically, stuff you'd see more of on a personal blog than an encyclopedia. Some of that can be revision deleted as BLP violating content. Speaking on behalf of CSD patrollers, I think there might be some confusion with "6 months since last human edit" and "6 months since page creation". The page history will become more central. But I do agree that page patrollers and a few admins did overuse CSD U5 tagging to get any pages that were newly written in User space deleted, even ones that were obviously article drafts. I hope that U5 has been removed from Twinkle and other editing tools. Thank you for the clarification, Tamzin. LizRead!Talk! 22:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Seconding what Ponyo said as someone who came across a swathe of accounts being used (terribly ironically) as a classroom exercise on 'safe' internet practices which very much fell under doesn't meet WP:OS criteria but really makes it apparent they are very young. Without U5, I am unsure what the best course of action for someone not endowed with fancy buttons would be in that grey area. Blank and pray? As aboveso below 11:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
At any time after seven days from the proposed decision or motion being posted, any arbitrator (but often one of the drafting arbitrators, or a coordinating arbitrator) may initiate the 'abstention for non-votes' procedure. To initiate this, they will a) post a link to this subsection, along with a ping for each arbitrator potentially affected, to the 'Implementation notes' section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion); and b) an email to the arbcom-en mailing list detailing the same.
After 72 hours, any arbitrator votes still outstanding will be automatically considered as an abstention for the purposes of that individual proposal.
Should an arbitrator who had abstentions automatically registered for proposal(s) under this clause subsequently vote on a proposal before it is closed, that vote will override and replace the automatic abstention.
A vote will not be closed as successful if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.
The application of this clause is not automatic, and arbitrators should use their best judgement when deciding whether or not to apply it. Factors that should be considered include levels of communication, statements around voting in the immediate future, as well as the nature and count of the votes.
I have requested on my talk page to have my access to creating draft pages restored and I was told to ask here. I was banned from creating pages in the article namespace due to the redirects I had created but I do not see how this ban should also apply to the draft space as that is not used for redirects. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
You appear to have 12 drafts at the moment. I think it's too soon, I think you need to get these drafts through the process before asking for the ability to create more. --Yamla (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I am currently waiting for most of those drafts to be reviewed, some of the others were rejected. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It might be best tabling your request until they've all gone through, since that'll give the admins a clearer picture to assess your unblock appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Note GoldenBootWizard276 violated their unblock conditions by creating a new page in Article space. Thankfully, when this was pointed out, they reverted their addition. However, I strongly think that means it's much too soon to consider lifting the restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
RfD
I've just closed a bunch of RfD discussions. This is the second (third?) time I've cleared the backlog recently. It would be useful to have some other admins patrolling there. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@WillowCity has a total of 1,421 edits. Their very first edit was in WP:ARBPIA, and most of their edits since have been in Arpbia. They currently have fewer than 500 edits outside of WP:CT. I wrote to them explaining that this might be considered gaming, and they responded saying that they are being productive and that it is not gaming. So I want to clarify - Do edits made in violation of WP:ECR count towards WP:500/30? And if not, can we request of the user to stay out of CT until they have indeed done 500 edits that are not in violation of policy? Nehushtani (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
WillowCity(talk·contribs) has been editing since May 2021. Even if the rules said ECP required 500 edits outside of the contentious topic, an account with that age and 1,421 edits would be regarded as no problem with regard to ECP since rules are not applied bureaucratically here (WP:NOTBURO). I'm not really sure due to recent changes in procedure, but I don't think that WP:CT/PIA requires 500 edits outside the topic. With the procedures that apply now (not in 2021), edits in CT/PIA would not be permitted so gaming could be argued if a new account were to start today. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind that back when 500/30 EC was introduced, around the time of Gamergate, we saw a lot of accounts created years prior with low edit counts suddenly active and engaging in disruptive activity around GG. We should remain wary of low edit accounts that suddenly become very active in a specific area, and certainly judging 500/30 over the account's entire history should be considered. Masem (t) 13:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Nehushtani, for interest, File:Gaming check - WillowCity.png and File:Gaming check - Nehushtani.png. This is using the strictest possible definition of 'in WP:ARBPIA' i.e. only articles fully covered by ARBECR, so the in-topic counts are probably under counts to some extent. It seems that people who want to report potential EC gaming need to do so close to the EC grant acquisition date. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
It's just a couple of python classes I use to check for gaming in the PIA topic area. It's interesting that you can see what I assume is a replication lag in Nehushtani's chart. The total revisions (that come from the user view) are less than the actual number of live revisions (from the revision view). XTools shows it too. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
It's because I'm interested in whether it is possible for a machine to recognize gaming. So, I made something to see whether I can reliably recognize and label what the community treats as gaming. And the answer is...no, not really. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I know this was made for the purposes of investigating me but it's very cool and I'm definitely gonna save this haha. WillowCity(talk) 12:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I did the same when they posted one for me. Very impressive work. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This concern was indeed brought to my talk page, and I will reproduce the key part of my response: I believe your interpretation of WP:GAMING is incorrect. You seem to be accusing me of WP:PGAME, but that is clearly not applicable: I did not make "many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles." Rather, I made constructive edits across a range of topic areas, albeit with a particular area of expertise and interest.
I think the complaint against me (if we can call it that) is based on an unduly restrictive and formalistic interpretation of the ECP. I did not "WP:GAME the system"; at all times, I acted consistently with policy. I have been an editor for roughly 4 and a half years and I am a bit surprised that this issue is being raised now. WillowCity(talk) 12:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@WillowCity - You say "at all times, I acted consistently with policy". How do you explain this in light of the fact that many - if not most - of your 500 first edits were in topics where editors with fewer than 500 edits are not allowed to engage according to policy? Nehushtani (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Such a policy did not apply at the time I made many of the edits in question. Back then, editors were allowed to engage on talk pages in the topic area. There is no indication that the new policy regarding new users should be applied retroactively to strip away permissions from established users. WillowCity(talk) 12:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
In October 2023 there was no prohibition on taking part in non-consensus determining discussions. That modification didn't happen until (I'm pretty sure) December 2023. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish - Thanks for that information. That clarifies a lot. If so, there is no issue in @WillowCity's behavior, and I apologise to them for making an issue here. Nehushtani (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
No apology needed. I believe there was genuine uncertainty here regarding an evolving policy, and a good-faith effort to get to the bottom of it. WillowCity(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please go to WP:SPI. Please provide specific diffs linking particular accounts. Admins do not go digging through contribution histories to find links. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Noticeboard template
For those interested, there is currently a discussion as to how the admin noticeboads are linked in the noticeboard template at Template talk:Noticeboard links#BRD.-- Ponyobons mots 22:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Request for Review of RfC Closure: Talk:Floppy disk
While I'm obviously WP:INVOLVED, this discussion just seems like a waste of time. Given that editors agree the closure review was AI-generated and everybody in this discussion endorsed the closure result, I'm going to boldly close this per WP:SNOW to avoid wasting more editors' time. Please feel free to revert it. FaviFake (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator, I endorse this close. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Introduction
This request seeks administrative review of the July 2025 closure of the RfC on the scope of the Floppy disk article. Under WP:CONSENSUS, the strength of arguments must be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” The closer appears to have evaluated the discussion primarily on the distribution of views rather than through that required policy lens, and therefore misjudged both the applicable policy standards and the scope of disagreement. Review is requested under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
For convenience, this appeal hereinafter uses the abbreviations FD, FDD, HCFD, and HCFDD for floppy disks and floppy disk drives.
2. Background
The present dispute originated in mid–2025 at Parallel ATA, where an editor questioned whether high-capacity floppy disks (HCFDs) and their associated drives properly fell within the scope of “floppy disks.” Discussion of this position began at that article’s talk page on 5 July 2025.[1]
Shortly afterward, similar removals were made at Floppy disk, prompting concerns that long-standing and reliably sourced content was being deleted without consensus. The relevant procedural history is:
5 July 2025 — Scope concerns first raised at Parallel ATA talk page[1]
13 July 2025 — Removals of unreferenced and HCFD material at Floppy disk began without prior consensus[2]
19 July 2025 — The Floppy disk article was proposed for deletion based on alleged lack of proper scope and sourcing; the community unanimously rejected the proposal and determined that the article should be kept[3]
28 July 2025 — Inclusive scope restored following discussion, based on reliable-source terminology and established coverage of the floppy disk generation[4]
12 August 2025 — Concerns about tendentious removal at the Parallel ATA article were raised at the Administrators’ noticeboard; no action was taken pending broader input[5]
13 August 2025 — An RfC was opened at Floppy disk to solicit wider community views while the earlier discussion was still ongoing[6]
September 2025 — The RfC was closed with a determination of “consensus for Option #1” (narrow scope)[7]
October 2025 — The closure was questioned on the talk page, and an uninvolved administrator provided guidance regarding avenues for review, leading to this appeal[8]
Views in the RfC were divided among narrowing, partial inclusion, and full inclusion. As explained below, this review challenges the RfC closure’s determination, which did not reflect the strength of arguments when judged through policy, as required under WP:CONSENSUS.
3. Policy Framework
Under WP:CONSENSUS, the strength of arguments must be judged through core content policies rather than vote count. The following policies are directly relevant to how article scope should be determined:
WP:TITLE — Article titles reflect usage in reliable sources. Since reliable sources refer to high-capacity floppy disks as floppy disks, narrowing scope would conflict with policy.
WP:RS / WP:V — Reliably sourced information must be included. Removal requires lack of sources, not editorial preference.
WP:NPOV — Excluding successor formats risks bias and misrepresents the full historical development of the technology.
WP:PRESERVE — Preference for improvement over deletion. Wholesale removal of sourced content fails this principle.
Together, these policies support the established inclusive scope and require that any narrowing must be justified by stronger policy-based reasoning than was presented in the RfC.
4. Discussion Strength and Lack of Consensus
The closer correctly noted that an RfC outcome depends on the strength of arguments rather than a numerical count of supports. However, WP:CONSENSUS specifies that strength must be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” In this discussion, no reasoning was offered as to why the arguments for limiting the article to “traditional floppy disks” were stronger or how such a restriction would comply with the core content policies—particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE.
The RfC attracted roughly twenty participants with views distributed among three main positions. Approximate support was ~9 for Option #1, ~4 for Option #2, and ~6 for Option #3/5/7. Their principal arguments are summarized in the table below.
Option
Summary
Key Arguments Cited
#1
Exclude HCFDs; limit to “traditional” floppy disks
While the closer correctly observed that consensus depends on argument strength rather than vote count, WP:CONSENSUS also requires that strength be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Editors across the discussion invoked the same policies—especially WP:SURPRISE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS—but applied them differently according to their understanding of scope. The following subsections review each principal argument in turn.
Option #1 – “Traditional Floppy Disk” Only
Conflicts with policy (Section 3) — Excluding high-capacity floppy disks conflicts with the core content policies described above, including WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE.
Avoid reader confusion (cuts both ways) — Some readers may expect only legacy formats (WP:SURPRISE), but others reasonably expect all technologies referred to as “floppy disks” in reliable sources.
No source for “traditional” floppy disk category — No reliable source defines a “traditional” subset. Scope would depend on personal judgment rather than verifiable criteria, contrary to WP:RS. A recent example was an editor’s good-faith addition of an early Burroughs flexible-disk drive to the main article, later moved to Floppy disk variants with a citation added.[9]
Small market segment — Opponents argued high-capacity drives were too limited to merit inclusion (WP:UNDUE). But exclusion would distort the historical development of floppy-disk technology.
Semantics (cuts both ways) — Some argued that LS-120 and others are not “floppy disks” because they are not always named as such, but that inference constitutes original synthesis under WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources such as Briggs and PC Magazine explicitly describe LS-120 as a high-capacity floppy disk or floppy-disk drive.[10]
Simplify / readability / organization — Several editors preferred narrowness for simplicity, but organization alone does not justify removal of sourced content.
Improve organization and focus — This option echoes the clarity rationale for #1 but does not address conflicts with WP:V or WP:PRESERVE.
Treat rare formats as subtopics — Supports inclusion in principle but favors limited detail in a companion article, such as Floppy disk variants.
Ambiguous treatment of HCFDs — No consistent or policy-based rationale was given for excluding high-capacity formats while retaining less-notable variants.
No clear policy basis for excluding successors — Opponents noted that reliable sources cover HCFDs as direct successors, so exclusion creates inconsistency under WP:RS.
Reliable-source usage requires inclusive scope — Major authorities (Mee[11], Porter[12], Briggs[10], CHM[13]) treat high-capacity disks as part of the floppy-disk lineage. This directly supports inclusion under WP:RS and WP:V.
No reliable source defines a separate “traditional floppy disk” category — exclusion relies on editor interpretation, not policies grounded in WP:RS.
Avoid bias (WP:NPOV) — Excluding successors misrepresents the technology’s full history.
Proportional treatment (WP:UNDUE) — The article already treats later formats briefly and proportionally, avoiding overemphasis while retaining accuracy.
Semantics (cuts both ways) — Naming differences do not establish scope; sources explicitly call LS-120 high-capacity floppy disks[10] so exclusion based on terminology alone would be WP:SYNTH.
Prior local consensus — The inclusive scope was reaffirmed in July 2025[4] based on reliable sources. No new evidence was introduced in the RfC to overturn that result, so under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO the inclusive version remains the default.
Concluding Remarks
Although Option #1 appeared numerically ahead, WP:CONSENSUS requires policy-based argument strength to prevail over headcount. Here, support for narrowing scope lacked stronger policy grounding than the rationale supporting inclusion. At a minimum, the discussion lacked a clear and shared policy reason to exclude high-capacity floppy-disk designs. The proper procedural result is therefore No Consensus. Under WP:STATUSQUO, the inclusive article scope remains the default unless and until a stronger policy-based consensus supports narrowing it.
5. Requested Action
This request seeks administrative review of the RfC closure under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The closer did not address the central policy issue raised repeatedly in the RfC:
Key policy question for review:
Do reliable sources — including major authorities on magnetic storage technology (e.g., Mee, Porter, Briggs, and the Computer History Museum) — define “floppy disks” to include high-capacity floppy disks?
This question is critical: if the answer is yes, then under WP:RS, WP:V, WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE the inclusive scope is directly supported by reliable published sources; narrowing scope would introduce bias by excluding documented successors; and removal of sourced content could not be justified by editorial opinion.
Requested outcome
If reviewing administrators determine that the reliable sources cited above do include high-capacity floppy disks within the scope of the Floppy disk article, then:
Replace the finding of “consensus for Option #1” with a finding of consensus for Option #5, retaining the inclusive scope and allowing improvements to readability through subarticles such as Floppy disk variants.
If reviewing administrators determine that this policy-based consensus has not yet been established, then:
Replace the close with No Consensus, confirming that the inclusive scope remains the default under WP:STATUSQUO unless and until a stronger policy-based consensus supports narrowing it.
This is a procedural request based solely on correct application of Wikipedia’s consensus and content policies, and does not reflect on the good faith of any editor involved.
I'm heading out, but my initial thoughts are that 1) there really needs to be a word limit for this sort of thing, and 2) Tom's LLM appears aware of WP:V, citing it in #3 Policy Framework with this statement, Reliably sourced information must be included. Removal requires lack of sources, not editorial preference. However, this statement by Tom's LLM completely ignores WP:ONUS (The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.) and WP:VNOT (While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.), which are both part of WP:V. This is actually the opposite of Tom's LLM's summary of those policies... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This request for review appears to be LLM output and should be collapsed and hatted per WP:LLMCOMM. tony 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It appears this closure review was written with assistance from a LLM. The "smart" quotes, large number of headings, each numbered, the incorrect capitalisation of every heading and bolded text, the extensive amount of boldface usage, the long bulleted lists using em dashes, shortcuts not being linked and instead being italicised, the incorrect spacing around slashes, the unnecessarily detailed and frequent references, the repetition of the words "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" three times, the unnecessary table, and the eerily uncommon words used make me think this is AI-generated. I've thus collsapsed it, also per the comments above. FaviFake (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this is LLM output. From the previous RFC, this might well be just how Tom94022 writes. I can see collapsing it as a wall of text, though. (Tom: If you did write this, and I am willing to believe you did, it does not reflect well on your style it's confused with LLM output.) SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@SnowFire See Special:Diff/1318491635 and the rest of their sandbox's history. To me, it is obvious that this was AI-generated after reviewing the history of the sandbox where Tom appears to have pasted and fixed the errors in the AI output. FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I ran the text through GPT Zero and it came back 94% AI based (on the first 10,000 words, if someone with paid access wants to run it all through I'd be curious what the result is)... QuillBot has a similar length limit, but flagged whole paragraphs as likely AI generated. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Here's an edit in which they pasted markdown formatting, and another edit which created a slew of weird, empty references. I'd say this closure review was not written by them. FaviFake (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Good catch, and once again I've wasted my time replying to a bot instead of a real person. No wonder the argument was so fundamentally flawed... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
This is absolutely LLM generated. Check the references (and also everything else about it). tony 22:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Side comment: I see the invisicomment suggesting discussion be done "above this line", but this seems tremendously confusing to have the discussion take place "inside" the challenger's statement. I think there should be a new section beneath the "references" instead for discussion.
Anyway I am just going to say one quick point: if Tom94022 wishes to overturn the closure in his side's favor, fine, but it should not be done on grounds of "No consensus = revert to status quo = Tom wins". The problem is that the article has changed significantly back and forth in the past 5 years, so there isn't any status quo to revert to. In the unfortunate realm where the close really is overturned, then I would unironically suggest some arbitrary method of picking a "winner" like guessing if the tens digit of the temperature at JFK airport at 12:00 UTC on (future date) will be odd or even, and deciding which side "won" that way. There just isn't a stable, consensus version available to "revert" to. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I've moved the references to inside the collapsed LLM content, someone else removed the HTML comment prior to that. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I think I'm close to the limits of my patience with Tom's behavior over this dispute, so I think I'm not going to comment beyond putting on my RFC process wonk hat and saying that I think the closing summary from The ed17 is reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing, The ed17 appears to have correctly summarized the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing, the closure seems reasonable and certainly not as incorrect as the closure review makes it out to be. FaviFake (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Not my preferred close, but it was quite clear that the RFC could not have been closed any other way. I can't see any valid reason to challenge it, and I would have closed it the same way. I suggest Tom94022 move on to working on how the information about high capacity and odd format floppies can be presented elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 23:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(RFC author) Agree with WAID and all others above, closure summary was correct given the comments made. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Section merged with earlier appeal of the same topic CMD (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am requesting review of the closure of the RfC at
Talk:Floppy disk.
The closer stated that argument strength was evaluated, but the closure summary does not explain how relevant content policies raised in the discussion (including WP:TITLE, WP:V/RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:PRESERVE) informed that assessment. WP:CONSENSUS requires evaluation of argument strength through the lens of policy. Because the closure did not document that policy-based evaluation, the basis for the close is unclear.
An earlier request for review at ANI was closed as a WP:SNOW close by an editor who self-identified as involved and wrote “please feel free to revert it”, without examining the underlying policy question. The closure therefore remains unreviewed on the procedure required for CLOSECHALLENGE.
Requested action: A new close by an uninvolved administrator that explicitly assesses policy-based arguments presented in the RfC and documents how the policies support the outcome reached. Supporting reliable-source information is available to the reviewing administrator on request to avoid re-litigating content in this venue.
Closer notified 27 October 2025:
Signing as the requesting editor:
Tom94022 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Tom94022 you know I'd rather the RFC had been closed differently, but I don't see it being overturned and I strongly suggest you move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't know about the merits of the various arguments, but given that this does not seem to be a straightforward RfC and there were a variety of opinions, I agree with Tom that the closer should add a bit more explaining their reasoning. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@The ed17: And ping closer of original RfC since they weren't informed of this new close review... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The closer was notified in this notice (see above). LizRead!Talk! 05:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Liz The "notice" by Tom above was for the previous discussion which was closed, Tom did not inform the closer of this new reopened discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 11:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
(RfC closer here) While believing that my RfC close was proper, I personally would have preferred that the first close review remained open with sections to delineate RfC participants vs. uninvolved editors. I'm only seeing one uninvolved editor in that thread, making a SNOW close questionable. Now it's just a process mess. Ed[talk][OMT] 15:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Sarek and Bushranger are both uninvolved admins, the former agreed with WAID's comment in the closed discussion above, and the latter endorsed the closure. I think the problem is, with Tom's request determined to be LLM-generated, there was nothing to act on. As the hat notice says Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. (underline added), except for Tom's signature and the header, he basically posted an empty message. Tom's reopened request claims the prior request was closed ... without examining the underlying policy question, but there was nothing to consider as Tom wrote nothing previously. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. As I said, I mainly closed the discussion because the sole supporter of the review was a inhumane chatbot. And this second discussion seems to be another vague, soulless message, just with an addition to the prompt to make it shorter. FaviFake (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I also endorsed the closure after reviewing the RFC, I didn't just agree with what WAID said. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
If someone with the time and willingness to collect the diffs were to propose a WP:TBAN at WP:AN/I I would support it. This is textbook disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
On a side note, GPTZero says 96% of Tom's text is AI generated (4% is mixed, 0% is human) and is highly confident the overall post is AI generated. OTOH, QuillBot is coming back 100% human-written. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 03:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Even though there's disagreement between the two AI text detectors, I'm leaning towards it being more LLM generated text based on the hallucination of WP:V/RS (WP:V/RS does not exist) as well as the fact that none of the internal links are linked besides the talk page (which doesn't even link directly to the RFC, just to the page it's on). As FaviFake also noted, ... this second discussion seems to be another vague, soulless message, just with an addition to the prompt to make it shorter.
@Tom94022, you need to use your own words and explain why the RFC closure was incorrect. You have the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (which were provided to you many weeks ago on The ed17's talk page), but I would urge you to consider the warning: Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. Reading the text you've posted in both review instances so far, it appears you want an RFC review that reconsiders the underlying dispute. That is not what an RFC close review is for. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if this post is written by an LLM but I'll be honest after trying once with an LLM IMO you've lost your chance at asking for a review especially when no one was interested in taking over your first one. If someone else asks for one you can participate but not from this. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
But as a practical matter, unless someone is more sympathetic to the OP's vision for the article than I can be, this request will ultimately be rejected one way or another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia survived for a long time before LLMs burst into popularity, and it's a general feeling, if not outright consensus-through-action, that message-board posts should be written in the user's own words, because otherwise we have no idea if they actually meant what the LLM spit out (or in too many cases can even understand it). Speaking personally if LLM output is the best people can do then they shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
So you'd like to make having already learned English well enough to carry on a conversation a prerequisite for new editors to point out BLP errors, copyvios, overlooked vandalism, etc.? I wouldn't, and I don't think the rest of the community wants that, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
That seems a strawman. A closure review has nothing to do with "pointing out vandalism" or copyright violations. FaviFake (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
None of those activities require the use of a LLM. A bad translation pointing out a BLP violation is more useful than the output of a LLM, one may be in poor English while the other has no understanding of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and generally just produces overly verbose junk. The community seems quite adamant that talk page comments shouldn't be written by LLMs -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 16:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
An earlier request for review at ANI ...
You're absolutely right, maybe we should move this discussion to ANI. This behaviour is getting disruptive. FaviFake (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’ve stayed silent to allow uninvolved administrators time to review this discussion.
For the record, I am the author of the appeal, which reflects my own understanding of the relevant policies.
My remaining question is procedural: whether the RfC closure evaluated argument strength through the required policy lens of WP:TITLE and WP:V, as outlined in paragraph 3 of my appeal. Since paragraph 3 sets out the relevant policy framework, I would appreciate its restoration so reviewers can see the issue in full context.
I will respond to questions from administrators, and I’ll accept the community’s determination on that point.
And with that, I’m officially dropping one of my sticks. Tom94022 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
It's now been 24 hours without any response.
To clarify, my request is procedural: whether the RfC closure evaluated argument strength using the policy framework required by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. In particular:
• No reliable sources were provided for the proposed “traditional” scope
• The broader, current scope is supported by multiple reliable sources as required by WP:TITLE and as available in accordance with WP:V.
I am not re-arguing the RfC content — only asking whether the closure followed the required policy-based evaluation.
A brief, policy-based response from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Thank you. Tom94022 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I’ve stayed silent to allow uninvolved administrators time to review this discussion.
@Tom94022 Two different uninvolved administrators have already endorsed the closure. FaviFake (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for the note.
Not all uninvolved admins have endorsed closure, and none have addressed the procedural question I’ve raised: whether the close documented the required policy-based evaluation per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
I was not aware of the relevance of WP:TITLE to the sourcing issue until I began writing the appeal, and this point wasn't raised during the RfC itself. That’s the sole basis of my request. A brief, policy-based confirmation (or correction) from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Thank you. Tom94022 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Not all uninvolved admins have endorsed closure Oh, I didn't know all 828 Wikipedia administrators had to weigh in on all RfC closure reviews. I guess we'll just have to wait then!Please keep going, I'm sure it'll get overturned if you prompt your LLM enough times. FaviFake (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@FaviFake Just for the record, I write my own posts. I’ve added a note on at User:Tom94022 about my editing approach and use of tools.
My request here is still only whether the closure documented the required policy-based evaluation per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Happy to wait for an uninvolved admin. Tom94022 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Sure, whatever. I'll repeat to you yet again that two different uninvolved administrators have already endorsed the closure. What you're actually waiting for is a third administrator, for some reason. FaviFake (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
And when that one doesn't give the desired response, it'll be waiting for a fourth, and so on. @Tom94022:, you are sealioning. That's not good. drop the stick and move on before you talk yourself into formally having a topic ban proposed. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Tom, you say your request is procedural, but it's not. You're rearguing the merits again. You might have had a point had the narrow definition supporters somehow didn't know about or didn't understand your evidence (e.g. closure overturn due to late breaking information, or due to !voters clearly not engaging with the material and dropping off WP:JUSTAVOTEs), but that's not the case. The "other" side saw your reliable sources evidence and !voted for the narrower definition anyway. That's a loss on the merits, not on a procedural defect. The closer essentially taking !votes as written when the !votes are a thoughtful consensus of good faith editors is fine and what closers should do. So not a procedural problem.
On the merits itself, you keep writing as if merely finding reliable sources using broad definitions means Wikipedia has to mimic that. The "other" side does not deny that these sources exist, and in fact it's great if you want to use them to expand topics on the broad sense of floppy. But there are tons of sources that discuss just classic floppys, especially during the period of the floppy drive's prominence. Wikipedia has to pick an organizational structure. Nothing's stopping you from still working on the same topic, just in an article structure different from what you'd prefer. SnowFire (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SnowFire Thanks for engaging and reviewing the RfC.
What I’m saying is that WP:TITLE which requires that an article’s scope reflect usage in reliable sources —does not appear to have been considered in the close.
"Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article’s subject."
Since no reliable sources use the term “traditional floppy disks” to define this subject and several reliable sources do support the broader scope I’m requesting a procedural check to confirm whether the closure documented the required policy-based evaluation of sourcing and scope under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
I’m not re-arguing the content dispute — just looking to confirm that the closure followed the required policy framework. Tom94022 (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I’m not re-arguing the content dispute That's exactly what you or your chatbot are doing. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
And if you do not WP:DROPTHESTICK, either I or some other admin will probably consider that WP:DISRUPTIVE and block you. You've done lots of fine editing over the years, and it would be a pity for this to stand in its way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan, as he admits on his userpage to utilizing an LLM, given WP:HATGPT (which is a guideline backed by the results of an RFC) and the warning of WP:LLMCOMM (Repeating such misuse forms a pattern of disruptive editing, and may lead to a block or ban.), an indefinite block until Tom agrees to stop using LLM/AI on the project wouldn't be unreasonable. Also, per this ARBCOM decision, utilizing an LLM to waste editor time should be taken into account as well. Finally, this RFC is awaiting closure at WP:CR, but my reading of the sub-question around making WP:LLMDISCLOSE policy appears to have consensus, we're just waiting on a formal closure. Every comment Tom has posted has been flagged by at least one LLM/Chatbot detector, so it appears he is unwilling to back down from this.
Instead of taking the hatting/closure as an opportunity to write a close review in his own words (one that does not repeat AI hallucinations like those found in the original request), he continues to double down on the LLM request he posted initially. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
All true, but the real disruption is his refusal to recognize that followed the required policy framework is not the rubric that we need to follow here. He could be just as disruptive typing his repetitive arguments by hand. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
LLMs can be used for certain tasks (like copyediting) if the editor has substantial prior experience in the intended task and rigorously scrutinizes the results before publishing.
Because my workflow uses tools like LLMs and search engines to structure drafts before fully rewriting and verifying them it’s likely that automated detectors will flag my posts as “LLM-generated” even when they are fully reviewed and compliant. However, current guidance does not treat detection alone as grounds for collapsing or sanctioning posts; instead, it requires identification of specific unreviewed or policy-violating content.
I meet the LLM communication essay standard, and my workflow complies with the guidance! I verify, fact-check, and rewrite everything in my own words before posting.
Collapsing entire comments, or suggesting a block, without identifying specific problems in the content appears inconsistent with both WP:HATGPT and the principles of WP:LLMCOMM. If there is a particular inaccuracy or violation in anything I’ve posted, I would welcome it being pointed out so I can correct it.
Meanwhile, the procedural point I’ve raised remains unresolved: did the RfC close adequately explain its policy basis, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE? If there is a better venue or approach to address that question, I am open to guidance. Tom94022 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
And blocked for a week, per previous warning. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Guess what? They've submitted an AI-generated unblock request at §Unblock request a couple of minutes after being blocked. This is beyond outrageous. FaviFake (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking a week was lenient. Up it to indef, to be lifted if and when they 86 the chatbot. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 19:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Completely agree. They'll clearly get back to using AI again as soon as their block expires. They don't even acknowledge they've broken any policies, instead saying they believe this block may have resulted from a misunderstanding... FaviFake (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I didn't block for the chatbot, I blocked for the IDHT. Granted, that may take more than a week to fix as well.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree with this as well, notwithstanding the WP:IDHT block, an indef block until the chatbot use is stopped would be the best possible outcome for the community. My fear is, even outside of this closure review, Tom will likely persist in using LLM in follow-up discussions as they believe they are doing nothing wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can't move to main page from sand box
Pl help Borunth (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To clarify, they've been revision-deleted, but (after discussing the matter with an oversighter) do not reach the higher threshold for oversight. In the future, to avoid requests attracting too much attention, the best thing to do is to privately email Oversight – you will usually get a response within an hour. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Questions about changes to blocking
Hi everyone! After reading through Wikipedia:Temporary accounts, this subpage on temporary accounts, this MediaWiki page as well as this one, I still find myself with questions and wanting clarity with what I've been reading in regards to the application of blocks and their effects on other accounts, what has changed regarding blocks applied to IP addresses and named accounts, and other in-depth questions that don't appear to be discussed, detailed, or defined anywhere. Here are my questions, thoughts, and concerns:
When applying a block to a temporary account or named account, the definition of a "hard block" is when the "autoblock the IP address used" option is enabled, and applying a "hard block" to a temporary or named account will affect ALL accounts who attempt to edit from the IP address and for 24 hours (the standard length that an autoblock affects users for). Is this correct?
If so, would it be prudent to consider whether having this option ticked by default on the block form special page and for temporary or named account blocks is still preferable? If an autoblock (a "hard block") now affects ALL accounts and as if I set a 24-hour block on the IP address and with the "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address" option set, this has the potential to start causing significantly more instances of collateral damage compared to before these changes were deployed.
Are named accounts that have the IP block exempt user right granted still exempt from being affected by autoblocks like they were before these changes were deployed?
If the "account creation blocked" parameter is set on any blocks, does this affect the creation of temporary accounts as well? Has anything changed with this option and its effects when blocking compared to before temporary accounts were deployed to this project?
I'll likely have more questions as I tread onward and with the temporary account changes deployed. Thanks in advance to those who respond.:-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
... Is this correct? A temporary account works just like a normal account with respect to the autoblock option. The most recent IP address of the account will be automatically hard-blocked for 24 hours (note: only the one most recent IP address will be autoblocked, along with future IPs, not all of the IPs they have ever used). ... would it be prudent to consider whether having this option ticked by default on the block form special page and for temporary or named account blocks is still preferable? Since all admins can see the underlying IPs for temporary accounts, admins should be able to tell whether setting the autoblock setting would be likely to cause collateral damage. In most cases, I think it should be OK to set the autoblock setting, but if you notice that the underlying IP is a heavily shared one, e.g. from a school or university, then maybe it would be a good idea to leave the autoblock setting off. I expect there might be a learning curve for administrators on this front, and we'll get more data on collateral damage as we get used to the new system. Are named accounts that have the IP block exempt user right granted still exempt from being affected by autoblocks like they were before these changes were deployed? Yes, this is my understanding. If the "account creation blocked" parameter is set on any blocks, does this affect the creation of temporary accounts as well? Has anything changed with this option and its effects when blocking compared to before temporary accounts were deployed to this project? This is a good question, and I am not sure about the answer. My understanding is that temporary accounts work just like normal accounts in most respects, so in light of that, my intuition says that if you set "account creation blocked" on an IP block, this would prevent creation of temporary accounts, which is desirable because the intent is usually to prevent logged-out editors from using that IP address while still allowing editors who already have accounts to log in and edit. Curiously, however, this also suggests that if you do not set "account creation blocked" on an IP block, then your block might become a toothless no-op: logged-out editors would still be able to edit with a temporary account despite your IP block.Mz7 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Edit: striking the last part per Tamzin below. Mz7 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I think I read that blocking a temporary account will prevent any new temporary accounts from being 'created' from the blocked IP address for the duration of the block, without mentioning anything about the 'block account creation' option. One minor correction too: only the one most recent IP address will be autoblocked - this is correct for IPv4s; for IPv6s, it will autoblock the most recent /64 range. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@The Bushranger @Oshwah: I've just tested this by locally disabling the global block on my VPN range on testwiki and creating a TA that I confirmed was able to edit, then reblocking the range locally, first with account creation blocked, then with it allowed. In both cases, when I tried to edit pages through the block, I got the standard "You do not have permission to edit this page" message. That remained true when I cleared the session for that TA and tried editing logged-out again (which under normal behavior would create a new TA). And then after a small side-quest disabling an errant abuse filter, I was able to register a new account and make this edit. So I do think things are working as they should. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Can you try 1) Create a named account using the VPN, 2) Create a temp account using the same IP, 3) Block the temp account with the default settings, and 4) see if the named account gets autoblocked too? ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Done. The named account is indeed blocked. It just gets served MediaWiki:blockedtext, saying "The account ~2025-31365-79 has been blocked (disabled) by Tamzin"; is that how it worked previously, or was there an autoblock-specific banner? Because seeing that your account has been blocked, with a different username/identifier mentioned, would be rather confusing to a new user. Ideally there should be some explanation of "You have edited from the same IP as...". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for testing! I guess it's fine, but since most IP blocks used to be previously anon. only, we might start to see some named accounts get inadvertently autoblocked. This might also be a good thing, especially if someone is using temp accounts as WP:BADHAND socks. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Worth noting that a TA getting blocked with autoblock enabled doesn't mean that their IP is hardblocked for the same length as the TA's block. Every IP they try to edit from while logged in will become autoblock-eligible, and then an autoblock gets applied to anyone else (if not IP-block-exempt) who accesses Wikipedia from it in the following 24 hours. So if someone on my building's WiFi got their TA indeffed with autoblock today, and then doesn't try to edit again from that TA, I'd still be able to edit from an unprivileged account on the same IP in 24 hours. At least that's my understanding. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I would have thought it would show MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. Can you confirm that you saw and not when you tried to edit from the not-directly-blocked named account? If so, that might be a bug? Mz7 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin - Interesting! Thank you for taking the time to test this! I was going to try testing these situations myself if I didn't get any sure answers back from anyone here.:-) So, in both cases with "account creation blocked" being on or off, it looks like the creation of temporary accounts (and hence editing from them) is disabled with autoblock set. It also appears that "disable account creation" only applies to whether or not users from within that blocked IP address/range can use Special:CreateAccount to create permanent accounts. Am I correct? I just want to confirm and be sure of my understanding here. If so, it might be prudent to update the block form special page and change the label for this option from "prevent account creation" and to "prevent permanent account creation" or "prevent named account creation" instead. This will help to make it clear that this only affects the creation of permanent accounts. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 08:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Mostly correct yeah. Autoblock isn't relevant to the blocking of the IP range, since autoblock is a feature of account blocks. The TL;DR here is: Any block on an IP blocks temp-account creation. An account-creation block on an IP also blocks permanent-account creation.And, checking just now to confirm, after logging out from my autoblocked alt, this holds true when subject to a block via autoblock. I disabled the account creation block on the blocked TA, but left autoblock enabled, which does update the autoblock, but I still can't create a TA from this IP (so the exact same as if the IP were blocked directly). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin - Okay, thanks again for testing all of this.:-) Since "disable account creation" on an IP block still affects whether or not you can create a permanent account using Special:CreateAccount (having it set to disabled allows it and having it set to enabled disallows it), then the option is definitely still relevant when applying IP blocks. I was going to say that, if this wasn't the case and if creating permanent accounts is disabled regardless of what you set for the "disable account creation" option, that it appears that this option is completely moot now for IP blocks. I assume that this is the same for blocks that are applied to temporary and permanent accounts. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 08:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Activity on a talk page relating to young editors
Administrators may want to respond and make decisions regarding unusual activity concerning purported/theoretical/abstract child protection interest stemming from this talk page section: Talk:Battle for Dream Island#WP:Guidance for younger editors and WP:Advice for parents. The supposed concern about child protection from some users has been causing objectively strange edits to the talk bannerspace, including addition of the template added and reverted in Special:Diff/1320442826. —Alalch E. 18:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Oh FFS, I hadn't realised someone had undeleted this. No doubt it's going to carry on like this for a while, just like it did before ... Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Was the template previously deleted by consensus? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Referring to the article, not the templates, but this is exactly the problem we had with it before. I've watchlisted it, anyway. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
For ease of reference for others, here's the DRV discussion which resulted in it being unsalted, and here's the AfD which SNOW closed as keep. Personally I do think that this article is more likely than the average article to attract younger editors, but am quite happy to leave it to a talk page consensus about whether any kind of warning/notice/reaction is an appropriate response to that. If there are young users who self-reveal too much personal information about themselves, feel free to contact the OS team or email me directly for assistance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Unblock from filespace
NOT LIFTED
There is no consensus to lift the files[pace block of Aidillia. They have been directed to WP:FFU to build confidence for a later appeal. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm writing to appeal my block regarding filespace, as per WP:SO guidelines. I apologize for my past behavior and realize that I was overly strict and sensitive about file uploads and reverts.
In the past, I engaged in edit wars when others reverted or renewed my changes, believing that the files I uploaded were correct and problem-free. I also made improvements to other users' uploaded files, but when I was reverted, it escalated into further conflict as I continued to revert.
When others ignored my good faith efforts I reciprocated in kind. I should have stopped reverting and instead opened a discussion to resolve the issue. I take responsibility for my part in the escalation. My mental state was bad during that time until i ignore the Wikipedia rules due to my temper. It's so stupid of me to think it's fair.
Over the block for 6 months, I've reflected on my actions, worked on becoming more mature, and committed to changing my behavior. I've used the time to read and familiarize myself with guidelines. I'm determined to be more responsible and open to discussion in the future. I promise to refrain from repetitive reverts. I'm committed to showing you a better side of myself moving forward and promise to behave more constructively in the future. I will also provide an edit summary. I apologize for my past actions that caused a burden to some users. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk) 15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to see a longer baseline of unproblematic edits before lifting that restriction. I'd also like to know what you were doing in your sandbox with all those single character edits earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Nothing... I was just bored and did that to relieve stress. I only did it this one time. If I'm wrong, I'm really really sorry, and I won't do that again. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk) 16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Guess I'll throw the first bolded one down? This seems fine, honestly, and I don't see the problem with the sandbox edits. It's not like they're gaming anything with it, since they're already extended confirmed. EggRoll97(talk) 23:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - "overly strict and sensitive" misses the mark by a wide margin; see the original ban discussion. They were persistently uploading new copies of other users' uploads or making copies of their drafts, without attribution and evidently with intent to claim credit; they were also involved in egregious move-warring. The discussion was closed several times after Aidillia seemed to acknowledge and accept their disruptive behaviour, then reopened when they immediately went right back to it. It was finally closed (by me) on 24 January, but the behaviour stretches back at least a month earlier (they have an edit warring block on 11 December). I imposed the filespace ban and an interaction ban in that discussion, and Aidillia was blocked about two weeks later for persistently violating the iban. About a week after that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aidillia found nine sockpuppet accounts, some created several months before the incident that led to the bans, suggesting that they had been abusing multiple accounts for a while and planning to continue. I removed the iban for the other user a month later since it had become clear that Aidillia was the instigator all along. I would have opposed unblocking them at all after so short a time considering their history of sockpuppetry and ignoring lesser sanctions, but they've only been back for 14 days and that's definitely not long enough to demonstrate that they can be trusted not to go off with their disruptive uploads again. And "I was bored" is not an acceptable explanation for anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, my behavior was really unacceptable back then, and I shouldn't have repeated it or violated the rules. All i follow is my temper and desire. All of it won't happen if i control my temper.
I just want to be unblocked so I can prove myself and don't want to bother anyone to ask to upload. I acknowledge that my past behavior was unacceptable. I've tried my best to show that I'm prepared and willing to follow the rules.
As I am extended confirmed user, I thought I could do anything in the sandbox as long as it wasn't violating the rules. However, it seems some of you oppose it, so I won't do that again. Additionally, I've been active on other Wikipedia languages for 2 months, where I've been improving, creating, and fixing content. So i thought that's included?
I'll try harder to prove myself. I will remember my wrongdoings that you mentioned and will reflect deeply on it. Thanks for mentioned it all and i'm sorry for the burden i've caused in the past, and i swear to not do that again. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk) 23:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Aidillia: what constructive contributions do you plan to make to the file namespace instead? —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 22:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I plan to add the correct link to the source. I've noticed that many files don't have updated sources after uploading new versions. Before uploading, I'll use calculator to ensure the correct size. If the image has a fair use rationale, I'll also add the template parameter `image_has_rationale=yes` to the licensing section. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk) 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose was only recently unblocked from an indef. As Ivanvector mentioned, I would also prefer to see a longer demonstration period (six months to a year) of appropriate behavior. Additionally, I find the reason provided here neither convincing nor entirely truthful, especially regarding the stated intentions in the filespace. Upon reviewing the mainspace contributions, it appears clear that uploading accompanying resources was the primary motivation rather than the purported secondary motivation. If anything, FWIW, it seems that the other party involved in the partial block should be the one requesting the lifting of the block first, considering that their conduct has been significantly better, with no sock activity or indefinite blocks following the partial block. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝) 08:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: @Aidillia: do 1-2 months of constructive contributions using WP:FFU or by making edit requests on file talk first at a minimum. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 17:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me now, I will start using WP:FFU and file talk page:) I thought WP:FFU is use for unregistered users. 𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk) 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - The past socking, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gaza war
A recent merge on the article Gaza war has increased the page size to 30k - is it possible to speedily revert the merge?
Because of the page size - its taking more time foe editing - viewing diffs etc... SWATKats (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Stupid question time. Should temporary accounts be blocked indefinitely for vandalism? Or should they receive a temporary block as per an IP? PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
They expire after 90 days, so a 90 day block is in effect an indef of the TA. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
You can still block the underlying IP for longer. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
As a social matter, though, we should treat TA blocks as if they were account blocks (that is, block them indefinitely if what the person did with the TA deserves an indef). There's no reason to artificially limit TA block lengths - all that does is create confusion about how long the person has been blocked for. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree. This helps also with blocking a second instance of the same previously blocked user as a sockpuppet, since the first instance would still be blocked. —rsjaffe🗣️ 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not altogether sure that I'm seeing much advantage to this. I'm definitely seeing an added layer of complication in dealing with IP vandals, especially at AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We even get a cool banner that registered users don't have! "This temporary account was created after an edit was made without an account on this browser and device." ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sock clean up needed
I just blocked Juice of the Trail as a Confirmed sock of banned LTA TotalTruthTeller24. In the couple of months that they've been active, they've performed a ton of undiscussed page moves that need to be reviewed (or reverted per WP:BMB) if anyone has the time and inclination.-- Ponyobons mots 21:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I've done the ones the tool for mass-pagemove reverts can easily handle, will be a while before I can go through the rest so anyone who has a chance before me can feel free. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are a couple things I want to know about my topic ban, but the main page about it is just gathering cobwebs, and many of the involved parties are no longer editing Wikipedia. Where should I take any inquiries? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
What is your topic-ban? GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unban request from TheGracefulSlick
While a number of users feel all of TheGracefulSlick's chances have been used up, the general consensus is that six years is a long time and most are willing to give a final chance. There is no consensus to impose unblock conditions or topic bans, though TheGracefulSlick is advised to edit cautiously, and stay out of contentious areas as much as possible, as the WP:ROPE is very short this time around. —Ingenuity(talk) 19:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Six years ago, I was banned for a consistent behavior of lying to people in the community, as well as going back on promises regarding content I would and would not edit. I tried circumventing the ban with sockpuppets. After making an appeal in 2020, I briefly tried other Wikipedia projects where I wasn’t banned, but I did not have any passion for it and cut off Wikipedia entirely. I am returning now in hopes of showing those who may remember and new people that I can collaborate with others, openly and honestly. If unbanned, I plan to reach out to K.e.coffman (if they are still active) to help with WW2 articles, as is still my interest. I also want to fulfill a longstanding goal of improving the Doors albums to GA status. I will need to relearn a lot on how to edit Wikipedia. I will be cautious and open to help from others. I will also accept any editing restrictions. I hope to demonstrate to you all I am not the same person from 2019. Please allow me that opportunity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 5:48 pm, 24 October 2025, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)
carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Six ywars is a lot of time and I'm inclined to say sure, but I wasn't around for the original ban and I'd like to hear from folk who were. CoconutOctopustalk 08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock as the blocking admin from 2019. Six years is indeed a long time, and the appeal seems sincere enough. Notably there's upfront acknowledgement of the problems of the past, which is an important precursor to returning to the community. Those problems notwithstanding they were also a (mostly) productive editor before the ban. Let's see if they can be again. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Cautious comment: On the one hand, it's a very good appeal; on the other, we've seen good appeals from TGS before (even with I plan to improve the remaining studio albums by the Doors to GA status) and been disappointed. We might consider unbanning with restrictions, but some in the CBAN discussion supported TBANs from WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, and terrorist attacks until a deeper trust problem was pointed out, after which some !votes were changed to CBAN. Also, pace Euryalus, when you're old enough to have been a Doors fan back in the day, six years ain't that long. NebY (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
An unkind person might suggest that six years listening to The Doors might feel a whole lot longer than six years. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
In six years, you can listen to Rock is Dead almost three times! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Unban per the blocking admin's support for this request. Hopefully the project will benefit from TGS's additional years of experience and maturity (I matured once, didn't like it). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock good acknowledgment of past issues, has the ability for good content creation, and it's been a significant maturing period. So concur with blocking admin to give a final chance. If they have any sense they will stay away from the political and contentious areas they had issues with before. KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock, a lot can change in six years.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Unsure I remember TheGracefulSlick well. The misgiving I have is that I remember this editor spending a lot of their time on noticeboards, reporting other editors for what they believed were infractions of many different types. We don't need more editors serving as Project Police. It's hard enough to discourage this habit among existing editors. I'd feel better knowing that this editor was going to focus on content creation and improvement rather than reporting on the failings of their fellow editors. But I feel better just mentioning this habit here in case it becomes a problem in the future if this editor ends up unblocked. LizRead!Talk! 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Certainly a valid concern re Project Police, of which there are way too many in controversial topics. OTOH per this their mainspace edits are 78% of their total, which is better than many medium-to-longterm editors. I'm not here as their champion (I was the one who blocked them after all), but if they continue in mostly mainspace they might do okay. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock - It’s up to TGS to prove that they have improved since 2019. Welcome back.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unblock Sorry, I'm not willing to give you a third chance here. This request conspicuously fails to mention the previous time we went through this rigamarole in 2018 and had to reban. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Too much of a time sink. We already went through all this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, borrowing the word of @Premeditated Chaos: from a prior discussion as they're still true. I don't care whether it's happened again since their last unblock. I don't think anyone who has ever used sockpuppets to harass someone while simultaneously pretending to friendly with them is someone who should be unblocked. Passage of time without even addressing the kind of socks used doesn't inspire confidence they learned from that. StarMississippi 01:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Copied over from TGS' user talk. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)I didn’t plan to make additional comments unless asked, but I think this needs to be addressed. I fully acknowledge the sock puppets from my first ban were used to harass others. I was not ignoring that at all. I was focusing on what led to my current ban. It also was a part of the deceitful behavior I mentioned. I can only offer the fact that I have grown much from my experiences since first editing as a teenager. I matured, gained meaningful connections with others, and developed the empathy I needed to be in a collaborative environment like this. You have every right to maintain your stance, but I hope you reconsider knowing that I am not shrinking from taking accountability for the harm I caused to people in the past.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment - A possible flaw in these oppose arguments that I have no clue how to address is the reality that people don't need to be unblocked in order to edit. Icewhiz, one of the original complainants against TheGracefulSlick, whose account was blocked not long after TGS, has chosen a much more effective path than asking for forgiveness. They don't hand over the power of when and where they can edit to admins by asking for another chance, another opportunity to demonstrate that they can follow the rules. They just edit using numerous disposable accounts when and wherever they want, and they have made tens of thousands of revisions since they were blocked. I think the reality that we do not currently have the tools to prevent individuals from editing, we can only block (some of) their accounts, means that people who choose Icewhiz's path have a substantial fitness advantage over people like TheGracefulSlick who try to return to the community with the community's blessing. This is presumably one of the reasons why the proportion of revisions by sockpuppets is substantially higher in contentious topic areas like WP:ARBPIA than in Wikipedia in general. When the chance of a block/ban review failing is relatively high, choosing sockpuppetry over block/ban review can become the rational choice for some people determined to edit Wikipedia. If someone wants to return to the community and demonstrate that they can follow the rules, perhaps WP:ROPE is the least bad option available. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not intended as an argument that "sockpuppetry is going to happen so it's actually good", although I suppose, depending on what 'good' means here precisely, someone could make that argument based on sock revision bold textsurvival rates (very high), AfD outcomes for articles created or mostly edited by socks (good survival rate), and the benefit to Wikipedia from the 500 revisions required for sock accounts to acquire the extendedconfirmed privilege etc. It's arguing that it can be more effective, that in this system people who employ deception can have fitness advantages over people who do not. Maybe sockpuppetry has a net positive effect on content in some areas. I really don't know. It's possible. What I know is that it's a policy violation, an option available to all blocked/banned people, common, currently unstoppable, and the majority of people seem to prefer to continue socking rather than pursuing the standard offer. So, I'm not sure the 'correct' way for people to return to editing is necessarily the optimal way.
I'm arguing that
The community's powers are rather limited when it comes to preventing people from editing and this reality should perhaps play more of a role in decision making.
Sockpuppetry can be more effective than asking for forgiveness or the standard offer when the desired effect is to edit and create content, as illustrated by the difference between TGS' effect on content since their block vs Icewhiz's effect on content since their block. It is under the person's control, not subject to whims of the community.
When someone has used sockpuppetry expresses a desire to reintegrate into the community and offers to demonstrate that they are reformed and can stay out of trouble, it might be better to give them many chances. Or not. Hard to tell.
And talking of preposterous, a very nice word, I think it's a little bit preposterous to assume that "six months editing without issue on projects where they are not blocked" tells you anything about future behavior or that it is possible to confirm that a person has gone six months without employing sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
This is not a general discussion about sockpuppetry. This is about TGS, and if the editor should be allowed back on Wikipedia. So let’s end this discussion above.BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Has had several previous last chances and abused the trust the community placed in them. I don't see why they should be given yet another last chance. I cannot forgive the creation of sockpuppets to harass another user as detailed in the 2020 unblock request.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support conditional unblock per WP:ROPE if TGS agrees to a one-account restriction. I can understand why people don't want TGS back, but this time an even greater deal of time has passed, and TGS has reflected on the issues when asked. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Actually, upon reflection, I don't think this warrants unblock conditions given the unprecedented amount of time passed. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm afraid i rather dislike myself for feeling compelled to oppose this request; i have, however, spent some time reading the one linked abov, and the one previous to that (both of which i remember participating in) and i have to say, each time they are blocked (four times in the block log) TGS makes an excellent block appeal and it is accepted then the community falls victim to disruption again. I want to believe, truly i do ~ i try always to AGF, i believe in mercy and grace and try to practice such qualities ~ but how are we to believe that we aren't being lied to again? I would be far happier if TGS hadn't said I briefly tried other Wikipedia projects where I wasn’t banned, but I did not have any passion for it and cut off Wikipedia entirely but was willing to show us by pointing elsewhere, to a different community, that they are ready to function as a full member of a community such as ours. As it is, we're asked to take it on faith ~ again! ~ that this time they really mean it. I'm sorry, but until there is some useful, non-disruptive activity elsewhere we can use to judge, no ~ LindsayHello 16:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock - Has recognized where they were wrong. One more chance seems warranted. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact) 16:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock - I am somewhat surprised to find myself here. I had watched the 2018/19 unblock and reblock play out. When TGS tried in 2020, I had some rather blunt words at what I saw as a continuation of the behavior that got them reblocked in 2019. We're now 5 years later. I can understand why some editors feel like they're at "never again" with this user. For me, 5-6 years is long enough (for this level of problem causing) to give someone who is obviously a talented writer another chance especially given the hints as to what was TGS age in 2019. Part of that is because it's clear the social dynamics have changed enough that if the lying deceitful behavior was to resume that a reblock would not be the dramafest that TGS has been in 2018/2019. But this unblock is premised on a topic ban from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia which wasn't a term of art when TGS said it in 2018 but is one now. Doors albums and helping great editors in history topics like WWII are good places for this user to devote their time (at least for now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, support per Barkeep49. I respect the views of colleagues who were more closely involved originally—particularly those on the receiving end of any ill-feeling—but pace, enough time has passed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per above. EF5 19:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. My threshold for supporting unblock requests and giving users another chance when they ask for one, as well as citing WP:ROPE when others don't think unblocking someone following a request is a good idea - is well-documented over many years on this project. TheGracefulSlick's request shows a thorough self-reflection of their past, an understanding of what caused them to be put into this situation, and a promise to do their best to avoid this from happening again moving forward. Putting all that aside, I base my support for this unblock off the principle of WP:ROPE, just like I do for other editors in similar situations. Best case scenario? They rejoin the community, earn back our trust over time, and become a huge net-positive for this project. Worst case scenario? We spend maybe five minutes tops in order to click on a few rollback buttons, undo a little damage, re-block the user, and show them the door. The potential for rewards significantly outweigh any kind of "risks", and with that, I give TheGracefulSlick my full support and welcome them back to Wikipedia.;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of indefinite IP blocks need review
Hi fellow administrators! This discussion is a reminder that I typically leave here once every year, and I know that it's been much longer than a year since I last did so.:-) So, without further ado: this is your annual reminder to please take a few minutes and navigate to this page, review the list of indefinite IP blocks that are currently active, and verify that there aren't any indefinite IP blocks that shouldn't be there.
If you applied an indefinite IP block accidentally (I know that I've done this before), or if an indefinite IP block on this list no longer applies, is no longer necessary, or should no longer be for an indefinite duration, please either remove the block entirely or modify it to eventually expire after a reasonable time. If the block was applied by another administrator and should be removed or modified to expire, please message them on their user talk page and let them know so they can review it.
Periodically going through and reviewing this list is important for us to do; it allows us to fix any accidental indefinite IP blocks that are set, as well as make sure that any indefinite IP blocks that were intentionally set at the time are still relevant and necessary. Thanks for taking a few moments to do this, and I wish you all happy editing!:-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
As the newest administrator here, I see that most of them aren't tagged as open proxies or similar, and only have a "regular" block reason, which is surprising to me. What is the procedure to follow in that case? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The standard procedure would be to reach out to the blocking administrator on their user talk page and ask whether they intended to set an indefinite block on an IP address and whether an expiration date could be set. Honestly, maybe it would be worth writing a bot to automatically poke admins on their talk page whenever they make an indefinite IP block (can make it so admins can opt out of the reminders if they want). Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! A bot is a good idea, although I probably couldn't do it myself! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I also agree that implementing a bot to notify an admin when they apply indefinite IP block would not be a bad idea. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 06:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
An indefinite pblock isn't as concerning as an indefinite global block; that said, I have seen at least two cases where a range pblock with account creation blocked was preventing editors on IPs outside the blocked range from creating accounts, so I'll go ahead and remove the account-creation block on that. Honestly 'block account creation' should be unchecked by default on pblocks, IMHO. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The Bushranger - Wait, what? There have been instances where a partial block of an IP range with account creation blocked set prevented IP addresses from outside the blocked IP range from being able to create accounts? How did that happen? Was this reported as a bug with a phab ticket? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the one I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure there was another not long after, but I can't find it in the archives so I might have misremembered there being a second one. But if anyone who kows the Phab system wants to file a ticket... - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I've gone through and changed to a tempblock or removed the blocks from former admins until about a huge chunk of proxy blocks from 2008. I left any that mentioned school requests. Probably shouldn't touch the ones from the WMF Office... Sennecaster (Chat) 03:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The WMF office blocks were arguably justified, though I'm not sure if the LTA is active anymore. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Undoing an office action is a really great way to get desysopped, lol. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just commenting on the block. It is unlikely many good-faith editors are blocked because of this. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I've reached out to the blocking administrators regarding the latter two. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Chaotic Enby - I just went ahead and removed those blocks and let both administrators know. The first IP block was a partial block that involved an article that no longer exists, and since IP users (now temporary accounts) cannot create new articles, this block is completely moot. The second block involved short-term vandalism that occurred back in March 2025, wasn't part of any long-term disruption or issues from the same IP address, and is clearly no longer necessary.:-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism reporting for temporary accounts
I apologize if there's already a discussion over this, as I'm sure it's a hot topic right now. So I have a question regarding anti-vandalism reporting for temporary accounts. Since we are no longer reporting IP editors (just their temporary accounts) are there no longer {{anonblock}}'s and {{school block}}'s?
And if a temporary account is blocked for 90 days, how long will the autoblock last on their IP? I ask this because I usually report a fair amount of IPs with a long history of abuse to WP:AIV, and they are then blocked from anywhere from a few weeks to a few years based on the IP's editing history and block log. Is this just now a thing of the past, or are admins still blocking the individual IPs underneath the temporary accounts? I don't know how this system is going to fully work, but I would think that if the IPs underneath aren't fully blocked, that's going to significantly increase the amount of vandalism coming from school IPs, which are extremely notorious for vandalism. ConnerTT (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
AFAIK if a temporary account is blocked then the underlying IP is autoblocked following the same rules as if it were a permanent account, which isn't for very long. On the other hand admins and TAIVs can still see the underlying IP, and block it directly if a longer block is needed. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
We can still do {{anonblock}} and {{schoolblock}} if necessary although community discovery of those ranges will be more difficult now. Also, the utility of some of these user talk page templates may have collapsed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It's early days, but my first impressions are less than enthusiastic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Quinlan:@Ad Orientem: I'm really not a fan of this at all. I realize that admins and temp account IP viewers can still see the IP associated with the temp account, but we use IPs that vandals have used in order to fight vandalism, via discovering IP usage patterns, IP ranges, school IPs, etc. I think this is going to end very poorly, and will make anti-vandalism so much more difficult. My account isn't six months old yet, so I can't request for TAIV status, but even then, I don't think it will make anti-vandalism any easier, since you can't actually report the IP addresses anymore, only their temporary accounts. I realize that user anonymity and privacy issues are present with public access of IP addresses, but this "solution" is going to make things worse in the long-run, in my opinion. We'll see how this goes, I guess...:-/ ConnerTT (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I largely share your reservations. At AIV I now have to check both the TA being reported, and the underlying IP. If I want to block the IP for longer than 90 days, I generally have to block both the account (typically an indef) and then issue a separate block for the IP or a broader rangeblock because otherwise the bot won't remove the TA from the list at WP:AIV. Same with TB2. My initial impressions are that this is not a net positive in terms of dealing with vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
You also have to look at the legacy IP information to see if there's a long term pattern, so that adds an extra page load to a task done 10,000 times a month. It's not great. On top of that, the first temp account I looked into was an example of my largest concern leading into this. The vandal made an edit or two, got warned, deleted their cookies, made another edit or two, got warned, deleted their cookies, and did this until I blocked them for a bigoted attack on another editor. They never got enough warnings for an AIV report or block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
As an administrator with both the checkuser-temporary-account and checkuser-temporary-account-auto-reveal rights, I've found this change already quite harmful. I can't imagine doing anti-vandalism work without both of those rights, and I suspect anti-vandalism efforts are going to suffer as some editors scale back their work or stop altogether. I've encountered numerous cases of vandals switching temporary accounts (almost certainly deleting cookies) to continue disruptive editing. I've also missed instances of previous vandalism that was obscured by the new user interface. Whatever limited benefit temporary accounts offer in communicating with good-faith temporary editors is far outweighed by how much they seem to help vandals. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I don’t think this front was that discussed in the discussion leading up to this, and IMO I think TA switching is akin to IP address switching, so basically we just made address switching less ‘switch to an IP that isn’t blocked’ to ‘haha I’ll delete my cookies!’~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
People were definitely aware of this being a likely issue. I just don't think it mattered enough. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I asked the T&S employees implementing this feature to let everyone see all the TAs coming from the same IP addresses or range, but they said Legal may not allow this. The legal team even recommended revealing an aggregate number of TAs in a range instead of the exact amount, while providing no research or even assumptions to show how this helps better protect user privacy. That's why I'm concerned this is all an elaborate act of security theater, satisfying legal requirements (that we don't know anything about) while doing little to protect the privacy of unregistered editors. Even if they make this info public, a much greater problem is that after three months, TA data will start slowly start fading away, and long-term abuse patterns along with it. You could argue permanent accounts suffer from the same problems, but clearing a cookie or opening a new incognito window is far easier than creating new accounts, and one could even swap these cookies around to assume multiple personas and sway consensus, since most content writers and people participating in RfCs probably won't have access to temporary account info. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, there should be a Toolforge tool or something similar to store temporary account data when it's accessed, and let TAIVs query data long after it expires. This is similar to what the CheckUsers are doing with their private wiki, so this is allowed by policy provided there are proper access controls. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous. I am afraid that admins are going to get so discouraged by this nonsense that they are going to start avoiding AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
This does seem like an attempt to comply with something, an ugly compromise. This is not great at all, I’d rather have anon editing disabled or something since it is very easy to create an account. If this is not possible just have only part of the IP revealed or something like the /32, just anything other than losing trackability. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Marriott properties (esp in Asia)
Closing this as we now have an SPI case open, thanks to zzuuzzMfield (Oi!) 05:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all
Seems likely, based on recent spamuname blocks at UAA, that there has been some kind of internal corporate directive within Marriott's APAC region to create pages for properties. That suspicion is confirmed by a search of the user creation log for matching Marriott sub brands.
I have personally blocked around 10 accounts recently, I assume there must be accordingly more that others have blocked, and a scrape of the user creation log for some of the most prominent brands returns a solid list over the last few weeks.
Here's a sample of them:
recently blocked at UAA that triggered this
User:Sheratonjakartaairport
User:Renaissance Johor Bahru Hotel
User:Four Points By Sheraton Bali Ungasan
User:Four Points by Sheraton Bintan, Lagoi Bay
User:Aloft Jakarta
User:Jwmedan
User:Thewestinkualalumpur
logs
User:The Westin Langkawi Resort & Spa
User:Sheratonjakartaairport
User:The St. Regis Langkawi
User:Courtyard by Marriott Bali Nusa Dua Resort
User:Fourpointsmedan
User:Fairfield bintulu
User:Thewestinkualalumpur
User:Sheraton Kuching Hotel
User:Batam Marriott Hotel Harbour Bay
User:Four Points by Sheraton Puchong
User:Stregisjakarta
User:Four Points KLCC
User:Miri Marriott
User:Four Points by Sheraton Bandung
User:Four Points By Sheraton Bali Ungasan
User:The Westin Desaru Coast Resort
User:Cicada Resort Bali Ubud, Autograph Collection
User:Fourpointsmakassar
User:Renaissance Johor Bahru Hotel
User:Courtyard by Marriott Kuala Lumpur South
User:Fairfield by Marriott Belitung
User:Courtyard by Marriott Melaka
User:Marriott MDS Malaysia
User:Fairfieldkualalumpur
User:Courtyard Bandung Dago
User:Four Points by Sheraton Bintan, Lagoi Bay
User:Sheraton Senggigi
Seems like there is no clear way to link these to a single account/SPI so maybe we can be on the watch for them, warn them accordingly while blocking that this is inappropraite, and can link them to this report or something now to provide a common point of reference? Mfield (Oi!) 07:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this. I've seen quite a few drafts come through on AfC in the past week or two, and mentioned this yesterday at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Marriott_promo_campaign. Reminds me of the recent Indian Army units campaign, where orders had clearly been issued from on high for units to get themselves onto Wikipedia. Difficult to know what to do with campaigns like these, when each draft taken on its own is sort of okay (well, not okay, but not immediate cause for blocking, speedying, etc.) but taken together they add up to a menace and take up a lot of community bandwidth. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Given there's obvious off-wiki coordination (even if the 'coordination' is limited to 'corporate giving marching orders') I'd treat this as meatpuppetry. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's what was eventually done with the Indian Army one: Sockpuppet investigations/832LT – 120 accounts blocked, until they finally got the message. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Also worth noting that Marriott has more than a few sub brands to watch out for, the list at least it is:
Speaking as a checkuser, gah, there's a lot to unpack there. Without going into great detail at this stage, I can provide some additional but normal usernames who know something about this: User:Ninosvetlan and User:Rifqijktgs, User:Dcahyani700. That's not a full list. For example, User:DPSEL also turned up. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I think Laksanagst is involved with this per their userpage. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Great thanks Mfield (Oi!) 00:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a formal request from me, Naznin Huraira, to kindly remove my photograph
Image cropped to remove OP, replaced in article, and original deleted on Commons. Mfield (Oi!) 05:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a formal request from me, Naznin Huraira, to kindly remove my photograph that appears in connection with the article about Umar Khalid. I have already raised this issue on the talk pages, but I wish to state again that the inclusion of my image without my consent has caused me serious personal and legal trouble. Recently, the police came to my house and summoned me for questioning solely because of this photo and its association with Umar Khalid. I am facing harassment, mental distress, and reputational harm due to this. I am requesting that my photo be removed immediately from the article . Please treat this as an urgent and formal notice to protect my safety and privacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umar_Khalid#Pleaze_remove_my_photoNaznin Huraira (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Can the uncropped version still be found in the edit history? And if that's the case, shouldn't that also be deleted? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
That would require revdelling everything from the 12th edit to the article to my edit changing the image and I don't know that it qualifies under any of the revdel criteria. The image also still exists on commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It exists only on commons as far as I can see. Uploading the crop as a new file, replacing it and deleting the original on commons would make the image show up only as a red link in the history. Hypnôs (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
So can that be done? Like ASAP perhaps? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah I see it, looks like it's going to be deleted. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I've deleted the image, and also blurred out the other person in your crop and deleted your original version. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I apologize if this is not quite the right forum for this. I reverted an addition by an IP and now he's been stalking (following me to another article and posting in dead discussions to insult me for no reason , , ) and harassing me on my talk page , , , , , . He also called me a k*ke .--Ermenrich (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Blocked for personal attacks. For the record, they're most likely separate to the user you undid yesterday, and the thread is better fitted for WP:AN/I. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Ermenrich, Ponyo blocked that IP account for a lengthy period of time. If they pop up again, please let them know or post it to WP:AIV. No editor should have to put up with harrassment. LizRead!Talk! 20:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting advice on Range Block
Hi,
I would like to ask for help regarding a potential range block against a contributor on the Icelandic language Wikipedia. The contributor in question was permanently banned by unanimous decision several months ago due to repeated breaches of policies and guidelines and constant uses of sockpuppetry. However, he has persistently continued to make similar edits using either sockpuppet accounts or numerous different IP addresses. His IP addresses typically share a range of numbers.
I wanted to ask firstly if a range block is appropriate in this situation and secondly, if anyone could then give instructions on how to perform the range block? TKSnaevarr (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
This seems to be a question better suited to Meta ~2025-32014-02 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
@TKSnaevarr: Temp account -02 is probably right, but since we're here, and this is a request for help from a sister-wiki admin: If I'm inferring correctly from is:Kerfissíða:Aðgerðaskrár/block/TKSnaevarr that you're talking about the IP starting with 2a01, then the narrowest single range to match all of the IPs you've blocked is is:Special:Contribs/2A01:6F02::/34. A narrower pair of ranges would be is:Special:Contribs/2A01:6F02:1000::/38 and is:Special:Contribs/2A01:6F02:3000::/38. (These are not officially allocated ranges, but they match the editing patterns from the larger IP range.) Whether a range block is appropriate will depend on your wiki's policies and norms. If you're unsure, you should talk to your fellow admins there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If you are concerned about the Icelandic Wikipedia, please go there. We do not have authority over other projects. Minehollow (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
That is a misguided comment. It is quite clear from the above that the OP is asking for advice regarding how to handle a certain vandal and enwiki has admins that might be able to assist. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Are new accounts allowed to discuss topics subject to arbitration enforcement restrictions on talk pages?
I am just asking generally as I’ve seen a few occassions of this. With South Asian military history and ethnic groups being subject to ECP restrictions (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia), does this restriction also apply to talk page discussions? So can a new account who has not met the ECP requirements partake in discussions on this topic? Ixudi (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Ixudi, we generally use ECP to mean "extended-confirmed protection". I'm assuming you mean the extended-confirmed restriction (ECR), described at WP:ARBECR, applied to Indian military history and South Asian social groups (WP:ECRCASTE). If so, the restriction states that all topic-related editing and commenting by new and unregistered users is not allowed, with the exception that they "may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". That means no, such a user could not partake in discussions. Only edit requests. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Wit's-end revdel
I made it through about a hundred revisions at Special:PageHistory/Margarida Corceiro, trying to disentangle the revdellably BLP-violating from mere vandalism and insult, before realizing I still had many many revisions to go, and that basically everything I wasn't revdelling was still worthless, or just reversion to the status quo ante. So I got fed up and shift-clicked from now to September, revdelling the last few months of the article's history. Since this is at least partly an IAR use of revdel, I'm noting this here in case anyone would like to critique my action, or would like to go through and tease out the revisions that don't strictly meet RD2. N.B.: My stopping in September doesn't mean there's nothing needing revdel prior to that; that just covers the two most recent BLPvio waves. (I've also indefinitely CT/BLP-protected the article.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
What a mess. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
In my experience, little islands of non-revdelled revisions are not helpful when reviewing history without admin goggles on, especially when the visible revisions are mostly reverts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Request for partial unblocking
I tried to create account on wikipedia and i saw that i have been blocked partially for the following reason Persistent addition of unsourced content. It is quite shocking because i have never tried to add any data to wikipedia. Please review this and unblock me.
Thank you, ~2025-32432-16 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
@~2025-32432-16: This should be resolved now. If you're still unable to create an account after this, try closing your browser and clearing your cookies, or using another device. After that you should be all set. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee elections are open
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The period of self-nominations for the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open. The deadline to apply is 23:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC). Giraffer (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors with the same name
Temporary account issue. Closing with filer's OK StarMississippi 13:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I've notice a number of editors while reviewing at WP:AFC with roughly the same account name. The format is the same, e.g. user:~2025-32236-54, user:~2025-32921-60. One of them just vandalised an article Sarah Goldberg (spy), which I think is due to a AFC review. I think I also saw a couple of others yesterday. I would have taken it to WP:UUA but don't even know if its applicable in this instance. I've posted the standard message. scope_creepTalk 12:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Oh, right. That is the first temporary accounts I've seen. Please close this. scope_creepTalk 13:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am here to report a user who is involved in sockpuppetry or upe, and gaming autoconfirmed and extended confirmed rights. LexyNight started editing on 15 October 2024. The first article they edited was Chandan Kumar Choudhary, which was previously edited by Setwardo to include information about the Delhi election, a user blocked for upe. LexyNight was also trying to add puffery, promotional, and unsourced content related to the Delhi election. After making a few more edits seemingly to achieve autoconfirmed rights, they immediately created an article about a company using spammy sources which does not appear notable. After a few days they returned only to update the company’s leadership using what was clearly a press releasehere and then went inactive for almost a year which is enough on its own to establish this as a upe case.
From September 2025, the user began making a large number of automated edits, only adding categories using the Hotcat tool per their edit history, seemingly to gain extended user rights in a short period. Out of 506 edits they made, 432 were automated, see here. Immediately after becoming an extended user within just 3 days on 25 October 2025, they started participating in company-related AfD discussions for which one needs considerable prior experience. A user who had never participated in AfDs before suddenly making detailed comments like a seasoned editor (see AfD Statistics) is highly unusual and raises further suspicion. This indicates that the user is not new and is likely a upe or a sock of previously blocked accounts.
I doubt if CU (CheckUser) would work here, given both are long-term, smart editors. However, there are clear similarities and enough behavioural evidence to establish that LexyNight and Setwardo are likely connected.
Timeline Correlation
LexyNight became active aggressively just a few days after Setwardo's second unblock appeal was declined on 10 September. A user who was inactive for almost a year suddenly becoming highly active? Out of 615 edits, 479 of Setwardo’s are automated. Similarly, LexyNight has 434 automated edits the same pattern of mass, automated category additions to inflate edit count and game XCON rights.
Linguistic and Behavioural Similarities
Both users consistently use nearly identical phrases and sentence structures:
LexyNight: “would like to clarify,” “clarify any misunderstanding,” “My intention has always been to contribute constructively and learn proper editing practice.”
Even the tone, structure, and over-explanatory style are strikingly similar Setwardo’s first unblock request was written using AI (as noted and declined by 331dot). When they wrote the second one manually, they used extra ellipses (“...”) LexyNight also leaves extra full stops in AfD comments and in other places also.
User Page Comparison
LexyNight: “I believe in neutral, policy-based editing and maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia content. I follow Wikipedia’s main principles of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research.”
Setwardo: “I believe in the importance of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability, and I strive to uphold Wikipedia’s core principles.”
Common Triad of Policies: Both repeat the same triad neutrality, verifiability, and reliability in nearly identical order.
Both emphasise neutrality, verifiability, and non-promotion as if countering prior accusations. LexyNight mentions on their user page being “totally against paid editing,” which often occurs when a previous account was suspected of upe and Setwardo was blocked for UPE. Both users rarely leave edit summaries, heavily add categories, and write detailed, similar AfD comments.~~ ~2025-33080-11 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) You're required to notify the other editor when reporting, I've done that for you now. Can I please also ask whether you've written your post using AI? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File description page undeletion request
Done by Chaotic Enby Rusalkii (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In relation to an effort to purge Category:Presumed GFDL images on English Wikibooks, I would appreciate it if any administrator on this project could email me the contents of each revision of the file description page of File:Joule apparatus.png, as well as the dates and times of each revision. JJPMaster (she/they) 13:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dispute over mentioning her birth place.
This is clearly a content dispute and discussion belongs on the article talk page and if the dispute continues, take it to Dispute resolution. It has no place at ANI and much less so at AN. Welcometothenewmillenium has been editing on the project long enough to know this. This is an ordinary content dispute that doesn't call for attention from the administrator community. If this becomes about edit warring, take it to WP:ANEW. LizRead!Talk! 00:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a dispute on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's wikipedia page. I feel as though this should be left up for a discussion. Her birth place in her bio is listed as New York City. There is a user that keeps changing it to The Bronx. Granite yes I understand The Bronx is inside New York City. But her place of birth has been listed as New York City for six years and now this user User:Muboshgu is all of a sudden changing everything that was already established. I stopped the revert and that user got the last word. Now I am here to report that user because we now have an edit war. I am okay, with being suspended as long as the other user also faces the same punishment. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I checked the history and two other people reverted you recently, once each. You should be discussing this in the article Talk page to reach a consensus. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet I'm fine with that. But I'm not sitting here to pretend like User:Muboshgu didn't engage in an edit war either. Before I made reverts. That user also revert someone else's edit that said New York City. I am in favor of taking it to a discussion. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I made my one revert for the day. Why did you exceed 1RR? –Muboshgu(talk) 21:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Rutebega thank you I am aware of how long her page has been created. It was created when she first got elected to congress back in 2018. Before that year many people didn't know her. The facts are all in the edit history of her full page. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. Why are you bringing this here and not the article talk page? –Muboshgu(talk) 21:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Muboshgu It is already being discussed on the talk page and you have been out voted by the way. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
One other person has commented. That's hardly critical mass. –Muboshgu(talk) 21:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Appears that the filer has violated 1RR on a CTOP, not Muboshgu. That happens. But to accuse someone else of doing so with one revert is not a good sign. I suggest a break as the user has a not so distant previous EW block. Then back to the TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
That's rich ... I see these edits right here. Three times in a row after me. , ,
This is from October, , ,
So I see three edits on the same day at different times. If you want to suspend me. Do it. I stopped after @Muboshgu made edits that were yes very disruptive. Now that person is mad and is out for vengeance, because you didn't get your way. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Welcometothenewmillenium, I can see why that appears like multiple reverts, but per WP:EW: A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert. Schazjmd(talk) 00:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@Schazjmd I mentioned to others, if you guys feel like it's best to suspend me then please go right ahead. I'm not defending what I did. I stopped and then @Muboshgu reverted after me. That's all I was trying to say. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I was just clarifying why Muboshgu's 3 reverts only count as one, because they were consecutive. Schazjmd(talk) 00:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there any established mechanism to challenge what I am perceiving as voter intimidation, wherein someone did not like one of my votes so they make it clear by voting against my nominations and votes 30 times.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Who's the someone? We need some diffs. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Depending on the specifics of the situation, it might fall under WP:HOUNDING, although without more details we can't know for sure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
As the above responses intimate, the established mechanism would be to bring a report to WP:ANI with diffs demonstrating the alleged bad faith activity. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for closure on unblock appeal
Not much input, but no opposition to unblocking here in a while so I'll do so. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I previously made an unblock appeal at ANI on October 20 (archived here ).
The discussion received some support but was archived without a formal close.
Could anyone review and close the appeal? Thank you. Kolno (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I have taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and its policies. I have studied WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:GNG and will ensure to follow them.
I commit that I will not publish userspace drafts to circumvent the block, and I will not create mainspace articles except through AfC. I will prioritize modern secondary sources, revise my existing drafts and use AfC before any move to mainspace.
I am willing to present two drafts I have made for review if that would help.
Thank you. Kolno (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Can you please explain how your prior editing ran afoul of WP:FRINGE? Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Also have you stopped creating or promoting drafts of your work per the July guidance from @Doug Weller? Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Regarding WP:FRINGE, I previously used fringe theories on two now deleted wikis and presented them almost as fact.
As for the second point, yes, I have stopped creating new drafts on the English Wikipedia. Kolno (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Very weak support After thinking about it overnight I am minimally satisfied by this although I do note that Kolno seems to have been seeking somebody to have a look at one of their old drafts not long ago. I could honestly be swayed one way or the other but I tend to lean toward WP:ROPE when someone has been under a block for a while. It's been five months. Let's see if they've learned their lesson. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Support, obviously will defer to admins but I think this is a good appeal. Willing to AGF re creating drafts while blocked, seems like an understandable misunderstanding. I do have concern over some of their articles, for instance Zimbabwean–Portuguese conflicts which appears to be total WP:SYNTH, and some of the articles based on old/primary sources actually passed through AFC. I’d ask Kolno to take a look at WP:HISTRS, but happy for them to get a second chance. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Set to not archive for ten days in hope of further input. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They seem to have understood the issues with their edits but today began similar conduct on the talk page of the British Museum article and became combative when their edits were challenged. I have blocked for a week this time. Bringing it here for broader eyes as I was the person who blocked them last time and belatedly realized I possibly shouldn't have been the one to take repeat action. Am fine with any consensus that develops here or at their eventual unblock request. StarMississippi 21:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Good block, clearly edit warring and failing to engage collaboratively at British Museum. Their creative choices in Wikipedia jargon also raise some concerns about machine translation and the extent to which they’re actually understanding what they’re being told. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree. They also appear not to understand verifiability and referencing. —rsjaffe🗣️ 23:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's Egyptiankeng's understanding of verifiability and referencing which is in question on the British Museum dispute, frankly. They might not be behaving productively but on the content issue they are correct: the claim that The British Museum houses the world's largest and most comprehensive collection of Egyptian antiquities (with over 100,000 pieces) outside the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is not supported by either source cited in this paragraph. WP:BURDEN is clear that it's up to the people who want to include the text to provide a source which supports it, not up to the challenging editor to provide a source which contradicts it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes indeed. It's quite understandable that Egyptiankeng didn't repond well when asked for sources to justify the removal of old unsourced WP:PUFFERY. Sure, the many unsourced claims of the British Museum collections being the most important, most comprehensive, largest or one of the largest in the world date back to 2007 and 2011, but it's 2025 now, our policies and practices are more mature, and we should be open to such claims being challenged. NebY (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, Caeciliusinhorto, I agree. WP:BURDEN is policy. As is WP:ONUS, which is pretty clear that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Since this content has been disputed, a discussion of the sourcing shpuld have been opened on talk, not mindlessly reverted. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Good block, this editor has not shown much of a willingness to meaningfully collaborate with others, and does not seem to understand they have no more authority over the articles they wish to edit than any other editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The prominent "This user wrote Grand Egyptian Museum" box on their userpage also doesn't shine a great light on the WP:OWNy attitude I mentioned in my original ANI thread, considering that article's been rewritten by others about as much as written by them. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
They not have phrased it well, but that's not a great definition of WP:OWN; they are, statistically, the article's primary author with over 70% of the authorship by added material. The closest single editor to them has contributed less than 4%. Not that quantity is any indication of quality, but I'd question whether the article's been rewritten by others about as much as written by them. In fact, they'd only have to stick two small words in ("most of") to completely negate the premise. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
"By added material" isn't a very useful metric here; they pretty much rewrote the existing article from the ground up (making it highly promotional and unencyclopedic in the process, as per my first ANI thread) and the changes that myself and others have made since then has mostly been trimming and rewording the material they added rather than adding anything new, so I still stand by the fact that they by no means singlehandedly 'wrote' the article in the form it stands in now. Athanelar (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
This argument is not related in any concrete way to any problematic behavior; people are allowed to have user-boxes saying (correctly, according to you) that they wrote an article, even if other people changed it afterwards. Better to stay focused on actual problems. --JBL (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration Committee election candidates needed
At closing time, there are 12 candidates for 9 seats. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee elections close in approximately 22 hours, and we currently have six candidates for nine seats. For reference, at this stage last year we had 10 candidates for nine seats, in 2023 we had eight candidates for eight seats, and in 2022 nine candidates for eight seats. If you know of anyone whom you think would be suited for the role, please encourage them to consider running. Giraffer (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
7 candidates now. Still need 2 more people at the very least, but hopefully more than that will run. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 05:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Good to see you join the ballot, saves pestering. CNC (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll second this, and in particular I'd really like to encourage more non-admins to run. I've become convinced over years of following ArbCom that a lot of its most entrenched problems relate to all of the members being part of, for lack of a better word, the same clique. A body that partly exists to hold those in positions of authority accountable is not at its most effective when everyone on it is already one of those people in positions of authority. Non-admins have come very close to being seated on the committee in years past, and that's included candidates who I'd consider more controversial than median. I think a few non-admin candidates with good tempers and reasonable amounts of experience in admin areas could make a huge difference on the committee. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC) ed. 10:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC): had said "non-admin areas" when of course I meant "admin areas"
I'd wager that many users, even some of the more experienced ones who aren't so much into the hierarchy/kremlinology side of things, would implicitly assume that adminship is needed, if not for standing then at least for actually getting a seat on the committee. I know the eligibility criteria don't say this, but neither is the opposite said anywhere explicitly (that I'm aware of). Maybe it is worth stating that somewhere? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
That is certainly what I thought, and I am probably more into that side of things than many editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
In my experience, if you could be an effective arb you would pass RfA and a foregone conclusion RfA after being elected to ArbCom might leave a bitter taste in some mouths so I can see the argument that one should become an admin first. That said, a committee of 15 needs a mix of skills and experience, so I would strongly urge anyone who is fairly consistently available, has a cool head and an eye for detail, and a keen understanding of confidentiality to throw their hat in the ring. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The first of those (fairly consistently available) may be a sticking point. I have no idea what my availability will be like over the next couple of years. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, I think I have all of this, but I do not have time now to write an election platform, and no energy at this point to listen during and after the election what a piece of shit I am, so no, not now, thanks a lot. May be if once we have less candidates than available slots this could serve as a wake-up call, but tbh I doubt even this. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The greater problem is that that never quite happens. We wind up with two or three candidates more than slots, so the election turns into "Vote for who you don't want" instead of "Vote for who you want". Of course, people can pick fewer candidates than there are slots, but most never do. (I do, most years.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I defiantly assumed admin was needed before this election when I learnt that non admins could tun. GothicGolem29(Talk) 13:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The main thing standing in the way of non-admins passing is admins and other editors who still view adminship in mystique. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there are enough admins, even if admins were the homogeneous group you're suggesting, to exert that kind of influence on a secret ballot. But you're correct that, for better or worse, adminship has traditionally been viewed as a gateway to positions of higher trust (checkuser, oversight, ArbCom, bureaucrat, interface admin, etc). Changing that would require changing a culture, which is not something this community is good at. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I did not, in fact, suggest that admins are a homogeneous group. Nor do I suggest there is a Clockwork Orange-style cabal with the user group. Individuals in any community are motivated by what's best for themselves, and in this community it so happens that non-admin arbs are seen as weakening the social cache of adminship. I agree, though, that changing culture has never been easy, which is why adminship is still placed on a pedestal and reinforced every time the toolset is referred to as "privileges". —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I think you're right that many editors take adminship to signify many things which is not. However, RfA statistics tend to show that this is a much bigger problem among non-admins than among admins. Admins as a group consistently lean much harder towards supporting candidates than non-admins do. Toadspike[Talk] 16:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
While I 100% would like to see a non-admin elected, I think body that partly exists to hold those in positions of authority accountable fundamentally misunderstands ArbCom's role. I think it always misunderstood ArbCom's role, but especially misunderstands it since RECALL exists. That said I think decision making bodies like ArbCom work best when they have a diversity of opinions. I think many of ArbCom's biggest mistakes have happened when there have been a limited amount of Arbs particiapting in the discussion. I also think a non-admin would be really helpful in increasing the diversity of opinions on ArbCom and I hope the community will elect them some day as German Wikipedia has done with its arbcom for years. I do think that the non-admin most likely to be elected is one who doesn't have a failed RfA attached to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
There is a non admin standing this election so will be interesting to see the result this year but regardless of the result this year I do hope that one day one gets elected. GothicGolem29(Talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
As long as ArbCom has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints about tool use involving private evidence, which includes almost all complaints about functionary conduct, holding those in positions of authority accountable will be one of its most important roles, and the role in which the fiber of individual arbitrators matters the most. I think you could select 15 random editors with experience in admin areas and they'd reach roughly the same conclusions ArbCom reached in every case so far this year—which I don't say as a criticism of ArbCom, if anything an acknowledgment that ArbCom generally reflects the community's preferences quite well in public matters. It's private matters where a lot more comes down to which specific arbitrators we elect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
If 15 people could reach the same conclusion, I don't think it would be an intractable problem that requires ArbCom investment in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Unless it requires sharing the social capital hit and backlash. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
That's fair - that is part of the value of ArbCom - but you of all people should know the way that individual arbs can make a difference on outcomes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The main function of ArbCom cases is to make all the people writing massive walls of text shut up and let the matter be settled by uninvolved experienced editors. I've seen nothing in the handling of any recent ArbCom case that makes me think it particularly matters who those uninvolved experienced editors are. Again, this is a compliment to recent committees. If ArbCom cases were subject to some great man theory of outcomes, this would be an oligarchy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
If anything, selecting 15 reasonably active editors at random might be an interesting idea we could try out. Of course, putting it in practice by electing ArbCom that way would be incredibly risky, but we could select editors at random and see whether a shadow ArbCom reaches the same broad conclusions as the actual ArbCom, in cases where the evidence is fully public. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
That is actually pretty interesting to know, thanks! Even if quite different from what I'm proposing (both on the selection criteria, random vs hand picked, and on the role it might have). Actually, it does remind me of meta:PTAC to some extent, although with a big difference being the scope (WMF liason vs community decisions). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Every year there's a panic about how not enough people are standing for arbcom elections. And every year it's wasted energy because we know, in fact, that several—enough anyway—editors are waiting to the last minute to submit their candidacies (admins, of course; non-admins know that if they did similarly it would be used against them). —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, 5 of 12 last year were on the last day. Hey, let's have a new rule: only one candidacy a day! NebY (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's wasted energy. I think the energy that goes into such efforts help create the pressure such that we end up getting enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
And we really don't want just enough. We want enough that people can vote for those they think will do the best job without accepting those who they wouldn't want on the committee. It's not healthy to build a fifteen member committee out of the eighteen people willing to do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Not really? I have had multiple people tell me in this very election that various people asking/forms of publicity mattered in their decision to run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't have ran if there were more people running. But I also care too much to look the other way when there's clearly a need. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 16:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
@Levivich, speaking as someone running - it's not post hoc ergo propter hoc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants more arbs, the best thing it can do is to stop asking for a two-year commitment, and stop expecting all 15 people to hear every case/matter. Rather than an election that fills a specific number of seats for a specific number of years, Wikipedia should change arbcom so it's a user group (like admin), rather than a panel (like board of trustees). There can still be annual elections to add new Arbs to the pool, but no minimum required appointments per year (unlike now). People who are elected Arb would stay an Arb until resigned or recalled. Over time we'd accumulate a stable of dozens of arbs. Then when there is a case (public or private), a sub-panel of volunteers with the Arb perm can sign up to hear it. There would be no expectation that every arb hear every case; arbs would just sign up for individual cases as their time/interest/lack-of-COI permits. Nobody would have to make a two-year commitment, and any individual arb going inactive for a while would not be a problem (of course there would need to be some reasonable minimum activity requirements). This is how most advanced editing works, how adminship works, and that model (trusted pool of users creating ad-hoc panels to deal with problems as they come up) actually works. The biggest benefit is we wouldn't be trying to fill X number of seats even when we don't have X number of good candidates, and the voters wouldn't have to vote for 7 or 8 "lesser of evils." Levivich (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
This absolutely sounds like an improvement, and I don't immediately see any major issues it would cause. I'm curious if that was ever proposed before, or if there have been objections against it in the past, as it does sound like a very rational model to consider. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
For on-wiki cases that's not a horrible idea. The problem is that the majority of the work we do is off-wiki and has significant privacy concerns. That's a situation where you don't want to have dozens of people with access to the information. It would also further cement the "functionaries are the cabal" problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Would a solution be to segment the off-wiki cases (and access to the relevant non-public evidence) by panel, or would that cause problems with arbs needing to sometimes cross-examine the evidence between panels? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea (not just not horrible) and I think the private stuff could work similarly. There would be X arbs who are responsible for handling private stuff at a time and that rotates. Most things they just decide among themselves or hand off to the next group (perhaps it's a 2 month commitment with 5 people rotating on and off each month so there isn't a complete turnover), but there could be extraordinary circumstances where they go en banc. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
And, if arbs on a given panel need access to non-public evidence for the purposes of a case, they could ask the "private stuff arbs" for the relevant evidence, without it needing to be shared among every single arb. The only worry I have is with the rotation, as it means that every arb will ultimately see all private evidence (except if past evidence is completely sealed off after a rotation, which doesn't seem realistic). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
While not unsympathetic to that idea, if we don't trust someone to appropriately handle private information we shouldn't trust someone to be an Arb. As it currently stands all 15 arbs have access to the entire arb archive and I can tell you that for one private case that came up during my time I spent a few hours researching and reading stuff from like 2004. And I wasn't the arb who spent the most time in the archives in my time (though I probably was above average). So over time a large number of people already gain access to a large amount of data. But also there are things that could be done to help minimize this, for instance requiring Arbs to login to the google group, rather than receiving messages as emails (as I have essentially a complete archive of the arb work for my time on the committee). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing from more past or present arbitrators. Do you think having an indefinite term, where you can choose to opt into performing tasks whenever you wish, would improve spreading the workload across more arbitrators, or exacerbate a tendency to let more active arbitrators take on a majority of the work? From an inside perspective, would it more or less daunting to sign up for an indefinite term versus a fixed term? isaacl (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
My personal thoughts, unsupported by anything other than a gist, is that it would be more likely to exacerbate the issue. It would also compound the long-term influence that functionaries (which includes ex-arbs and arbs) have on higher levels of governance. I think one year terms would probably be a better solution, though I don't think there's enough prospective candidates to accomplish something with that, and I don't think going through this whole rigmarole twice a year would be worth the squeeze. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'm having a bit of difficulty, though, reconciling it with your previous view ("For on-wiki cases that's not a horrible idea."). Are you saying that it's not horrible, though it has drawbacks, and you think one-year terms would be a better solution? (On a side note, I imagine with a one-year term, the community would stay with annual elections, and rely on its own judgement to preserve experience on the arbitration committee across terms.) isaacl (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's not a horrible idea for on-wiki cases. The one year term thing would (hopefully, maybe) help the activity and burnout issues better. If there was a wider pool of arbs to handle the on-wiki stuff, that could help it move along quicker, but I don't see it as helping with the private workload, which is significantly higher than the on-wiki workload. Using that same pool for the off-wiki work is what I would be concerned about further cementing the the long-term influence of functionaries. Right now there are enough new arbs coming in with each election to better represent shifts and changes in the community. If that 5 of 15 turned into 5 of 45, though, that representation would be significantly blunted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The number of candidates has been a yearly concern for some time. I have to think most people in the pool of realistic candidates (empirically, admins with >1 year experience) are aware of this: and yet the vast majority of us don't run, year after year. Presumably, most of us have what we think are good reasons (I know I do): but perhaps there is a need to get real data on this, via WMF surveys or some other means. While the proposals above strike me as reasonable, addressing a concern about workload is very different that addressing a concern about political pressure on arbs living in certain places, which is very different than addressing a concern about the unpleasantness of the work. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
This isn't just an enwiki thing either - the German ArbCom currently has 6 candidates for 7 seats (and it's possible some of those candidates won't meet the support threshold). There is obviously also the fact that the U4C can only fill 8/16 seats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just saw private info on this abuse log, needs oversight:
Not a matter for oversight or AN StarMississippi 20:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see no reason at all why that edit needs oversight. Care to elaborate? --Yamla (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely. There is an email (which I disagree with you, if they really wanted to add their email, go ahead, but ask them...) in the filter log that could be hacked, etc... and apparently we need a filter check to determine whether to make the filter log private (triggering other filters w/ emails in them) ~2025-33549-16 (talk) ~2025-33549-16 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I concur with LakesideMiners, this is ad spam. They want their email out there anyway ~212.78~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reopen RfC at RSN that was closed early
Springee is admonished for unilaterally re-opening the RFC. Please review WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Editors are reminded that they should not allow their politics to guide their editing and that post-1992 American politics is a contentious topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a challenge to a RfC that was closed after less than 24hr at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_reliability_of_the_BBC. The argument for closing the RfC early is that the results wouldn't change the GREL rating of the source. I agree but a number of editors were raising concerns regarding issues to watch for (not summarized in the closing). Additionally, the rate of editors adding comments had not dropped off. Per wp:CLOSE, a early close that is questioned by more than a single editor is generally a reason to reopen the discussion. Wikieditor662 opened a review at Cortador's talk page noting that I and Ad Orientem. Cortador made it clear they were not interested in disusing the issue and it should be raised here. Please reopen the discussion so it can run like any other RfC. Springee (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Springee has already: participated in the original discussion, added a new reply to the RfC, which had then already been closed by Gramix13, then unliterary re-opened the RfC instead of taking it to Gramix13's talk page or AN, then added another new reply to the RfC after I closed it instead of taking it to the talk page or AN, then re-added that reply under the RfC after another editor told them not to keep adding replies to already closed discussions, joined another discussion about the closure on RSN, participated in a discussion about the issue on their own talk page, left a note on Ad Orientem's talk page (instead of the talk page of the closers), then participated in a discussion about the issue on my talk page (which they still didn't open - Wikieditor662 did), and finally opened this discussion - without notifying me on my talk page, as is required ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page"). All of that for a RfC whose outcome - the BBC still being a generally reliable source - Springee supports as per his comments, like 90% of participants in that discussion did (hence the double snowclose). Cortador (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
As you noted, when the discussion was prematurely closed by a relatively new editor I reverted the closing. Note that Gramix13's closing was done unilaterally while the discussion was still active and reverting such closings isn't unusual. Given you said to take this to AN instead of being open to discussing the issue on your talk page I opened it here and pinged you. The problem with your argument to close "90%..." is that you are only focusing on if this will change the RSP rating. That isn't the complete discussion since editors were also commenting on bias and potential concerns if more evidence surfaces or if new issues come up. You failed to note that in your closing. Also, once an editor has objected to a closing that was done like this, wp:CLOSE says the normal thing would be to reopen the discussion. If we are going to close the RfC then the original discussion earlier on the page should be reopened since clearly editors beyond want to discuss the topic. Springee (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, why not just propose this at WP:RSP? I've seen bolder moves of summarising discussions without formal closes, there's no need to improve the close for summarisation purposes. CNC (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Given additional editors have expressed interest in weighing in, we should follow standard practice and reopen and let the RfC run until traffic dies out naturally. Springee (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Endorse close as it was a WP:SNOW situation. The discussion should continue however, as the thread was closed on account of the RfC. May I suggest that a new thread be opened by a dilligent editor who is going to summarise all the problematic areas identified thus far (with sources), if any. The BBC is unlikely to be deemed GUNREL, but if there are enough issues in a particular area it might get an "additional considerations apply". For that to happen though, editors have to be clear about which topic areas the add. cons. apply. I haven't actually read the discussion so I have no idea if the arguments therein have any merit. I'm commenting from a procedural point of view. TurboSuperA+[talk] 14:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Is this meant to be a formal review? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 16:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
No, just a request to reopen the discussion. Springee (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a conduct issue, so I don't think an admin can unilaterally reopen the RFC. CLOSE say that if multiple editors ask the closer to reopen an early close the closer will usually do so, but as Cortador stands by their close I think you will need to review it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 17:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Saying that, as I said previously, I'd prefer that it had been left open longer. I don't think it would make any difference to the close, but unless editor get to have a say they won't think that the close is valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Springee, this ALL could have been avoided if you did the correct thing from the start and consulted the closer on their talk page. You did not do that, instead choosing to revert the close unilaterally, then add your own !vote which aligned with the close in the first place. You are wasting everyone's time now. Drop the stick. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi) 16:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
My !vote as well as the editor who !voted after me aren't fully aligned with the close since the close only looked at the numerical vote but didn't summarize the discussion. I also don't think we should be disregarding process (closing discussions when they are still active) so quickly. It seems odd that someone can unilaterally jump in a close a discussion but others can't disagree and reopen the discussion. I'm not sympathetic with the time concern as no one is required to participate. Conversely, editors who might want to voice an !vote were cut out because the RfC was closed prematurely. Springee (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Following a proper procedure will alleviate any concerns about this close and maybe prevent future disputes. When editors in good standing request simply following established procedure and reopen that RfC, it is not a good taste to shout at them to drop the stick. Just give it 24 hours, that is my non-admin take. Pavlor (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The RfC was started in response to a question I posed at RSN which got a lot of rather hostile reactions, but also some that were sympathetic to my concerns. AFAIK none of the original discussion particpants were notified of this RfC, including myself as OP. No input was sought before opening it and the options for the survey were rather limited. The RfC was then shut down in less than 24 hrs without any meaningful participation by people who had expressed concerns in the original discussion. This closure was then used as justification to summarily close the original discussion that I had opened. I did not become aware of any of this until after this little fait accompli. Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as a text book example of how not to do an RfC (or close one w/o bothering to dig into its background). IMHO the RfC was premature, the options for the survey were too limited, it should have been a subject for discussion in the original thread that I had opened in order to gauge if there was even a justification for one, and INVOLVED parties were not notified. For these reasons the close of the RfC was rushed and the immediate closing of the original discussion was improper. All of which said, I am not in favor of dragging this drama out any further. The truth is the RfC was unlikely to gain any consensus even if the original discussion participants had been notified. Though I doubt it would have ended up as a SNOW close. Had I been asked in advance, I would have counseled against opening an RfC without further discussion and a better understanding of how L'Affaire BBC was likely to end up. And I certainly would have wanted a more nuanced set of options for the survey if we ever got to that point. But we are where we are and its time to acknowledge that this was just one giant cluster bleep that did not serve the community well. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Editors really need to stop bringing their politics into content disputes. Rushing to start an RFC at RSN because the BBC fucked up in one documentary is disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP user edit warring, block evading, mass reverting me on multiple pages
Been dealt with at ANI Mfield (Oi!) 03:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
please check this out. This user won't stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2025-33939-27 Kpop777 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:ANI is usually better for these kinds of requests. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Well can you still block him or do I have to go there Kpop777 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: this issue was also posted to ANI. • a frantic turtle 🐢 02:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
DONE
Zero unanswered requests remaining. —rsjaffe🗣️ 21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Got some of the more urgent, especially BLPs. More help still needed. StarMississippi 19:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've requested revision deletion for text copied into Wikipedia before, but became an administrator recently and so have only implemented it for the first time just now. Just posting here in case anybody wants to check my work or point out if there was something that should have been done differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delmass_cave&action=historyRjjiii (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
All looks good to me Mfield (Oi!) Mfield (Oi!) 06:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes I did read WP:TA, but my question is rudely unanswered.
My earlier same post was reverted (Undid revision 1322279395 by Altenmann (talk) - no, WP:TA, jeez) with uncalled-for annoyance: how the heck I could guess these are WP:TA?
But my question remains: are bots scrutinizing these accounts the same way as IPs? -- Altenmann>talk 10:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
P.S. Shouldn't tghere be some indication that these are WP:TA? We do have some automatic templates, such as "Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft." --Altenmann>talk 10:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
This is not the place to ask such queries, and I have posted on your talk page to direct you to the relevant location. Despite this, and you posting here now three times, you continue to clog up the notice board. Your edits are disruptive. GiantSnowman 10:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes I did read that llocation, but it does not give me the answers. Your edits are rude, unfriendly, and unhellpful. --Altenmann>talk 10:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
P.P.S. GiantSnowman really deserves trout-slapping for rudeness unbecoming of an admin. --Altenmann>talk 10:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
No, the speed at which you have re-posted here clearly shows you have NOT read WP:TA. GiantSnowman 10:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
No, the speed with which you reverted me shows taht you did not bother to rread my quuestions, which are not addressed in WP:TA. --Altenmann>talk 10:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Because AFAIK bots are enabled by admins. Now I did ask there. But heck, when I first posted I had no slightest idea what athe these ~2005. See myy second question in P.S.. Your intolerance baffles me mightily. --Altenmann>talk 10:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Davidbena unban request
No consensus to unban. This could almost be read as consensus to unban with a topic ban from some set of topics, but the people discussing topic bans don't agree on what specific topics those would be which makes that outcome unworkable. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I implemented a community siteban of Davidbena in April. A bit more than six months having passed, Davidbena has asked me to to copy the following unban request here:
Over the past six-months, I have had the opportunity to reflect on my actions and on what caused my recent ban from the site (see ), and now, after having been told the incongruities that warranted this ban, I have directed my mind to correct those errors and, hopefully, never to repeat them. I feel that I have come a long way, and by the good graces of some editors here who were willing to counsel me, I have gone over again the guidelines for good journalism, and what is expected of editors here on Wikipedia.
My major mistake was in not recognizing that even when citing a reputable source such as Maimonides, we as editors are to avoid repeating what might be construed by others as another author's bias, or an "opinionated source", since Wikipedia asks of us to detach ourselves from the biases of any one particular source, whether it be in the form of semantics used by that author, or in his or her choice of words (e.g. euphemisms), etc., and to take rather a "neutral-stance," and to present the most plain-meaning of a word in question to our readers, without interdiction. Wikipedia is a "knowledge-based" encyclopedia, which warrants us as editors to be disconnected from certain biases. In my case, I should have simply called a spade a spade, without trying to mitigate the meaning of a distasteful act or word, or taking at face-value the biases of a Medieval author.
The proscription of WP:SYNTH is plain to me, and, I, at all times, seek to avoid its use. We cannot extrapolate that simply because one source speaks about a certain fact, that another unrelated source might somehow be connected to that same fact. If I recall correctly, the reference used to suggest "international law" coming in conflict with a particular law (see diff) was stated by me only in general terms, without specificity. Even so, we later came to reject that edit for a more neutral one, one that does no pit international law up against a biblical law, which would have the immediate tendency of suggesting a bias in favor of the biblical laws. I should not have intimated such a thing, as our job here is NOT to take sides! Davidbena (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I'm really pleased to see how receptive Davidbena has been to my critique of his original unblock request (see his usertalk) and the efforts he's made to engage with the reasons for the ban. I'm going to stop short for now of !voting on the unban request, but my initial impression is favorable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Support unban per WP:LASTCHANCE. Davidbena needs to be cautious (as do we all) about highly contentious topics such rape and international law, but I see evidence that the editor's understanding has improved since the ban. I commend Tamzin for taking the time to discuss the issues thoroughly with Davidbena, who has a lot to offer Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Tentative oppose or at a minimum, Support with a topic ban. Davidbena can be a productive editor, but has some very strong feelings about what is Right when it comes to specific areas, which also happen to be Contentious Topics. The conduct that led to the block was an escalation, but it didn't come out of nowhere and six months of directed my mind isn't going to magically address the underlying issues and something about the phrasing of this unblock reads as if they're saying what they thing we want to hear, although I do think they're sincere in their apology. I would rather see a productive history in less contentious areas before a full unblock. StarMississippi 03:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: Just to be clear, since the capital-C capital-T Contentious Topic here is WP:CT/A-I, and at least most of the edits at beautiful captive woman fell outside that area, are you suggesting a TBAN just from the Arab–Israeli conflict, or something broader, like including Jewish topics? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin I've seen A-I interpreted in differing ways, both conflict only and related to the overall area now. I am not sure which of the two Shira Klein scholars google found is the one cited in beautiful captive woman, but at least one should probably be avoided. I'll think more on this and come back. StarMississippi 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
My take as someone who does a lot of CT/A-I enforcement is that while the edits at Beautiful captive woman were clearly informed by the ongoing conflict in Gaza, it would at the very least have been pushing the bounds of "broadly construed" to consider them in-scope, except maybe the line about Jews and international law, but even that steered clear of anything explicitly A-I. I don't think I can confidently say that, if Davidbena had made those edits while TBANned, a block for TBAN violation would have stuck at AE. If you want a scope that would cover that but not be overly broad, "The Arab–Israeli conflict and Jewish military topics" might suffice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, as always for your insight and input @Tamzin. I don't think Davidbena was at all trying to find the edges, I think he's absolutely here in good faith. I just think these are troublesome areas for him given the lens in which he sees the world and (I'm assuming here), some of his lived experiences.
Thinking on yours and @Girth Summit/@Liz's suggestions below and will come back on this. I definitely do not think there's a scenario I'd support without some topic bans. StarMississippi 03:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Support unban while noting Cullen's concerns above. JayCubby 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I cannot support an unban in this case. It strikes me that DB has still failed to grasp how shockingly offensive some of the arguments he made previously were. In this very request he applies the phrase 'a distasteful act' to rape - the issue of euphemism has not abated. I can't see how he could be unbanned without some very broad tbans in place, like 'religion' and 'sexuality', both broadly construed. GirthSummit (blether) 23:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a topic ban on gender and sexuality might be more appropriate if this approach occurred on other articles. LizRead!Talk! 01:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Two days ago, before they were more or less coached on what they would have to say to have a chance of an unblock, they posted their own unblock request, starting with "On April 19, 2025, I was banned from editing this site (see 1). I'm asking for the opportunity to help improve articles on this magnificent platform, just as I have faithfully done in the past, with only minor infractions.". I don't think we should let someone return to editing who considers the long history of problems, and the serious issues which lead to the ban, "only minor infractions". If consensus would be for an unban anyway, I would suggest topic bans on religion, sexuality, and Israel (three separate topics, each broadly construed). Fram (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Certainly, when one has been the subject of two topic bans in the past, and two blocks including one fairly lengthy one for breaching one of those bans, and one's editing has been the subject of multiple discussions at admin noticeboards, passing off previous issues as 'minor infractions' seems rather, well, euphemistic. I'd have been a lot more supportive if they'd said 'I was completely out of line, I've thought about it and I can see why people were so upset, I'll stay away from subjects like that in future'. But to me this reads like someone who doesn't really know what was wrong with what they did, and doesn't really think there was anything that egregious, but who wants to come back on a time served basis. While I commend their enthusiasm for the project, I don't see any evidence of genuine understanding of the issues that led to the multiple tbans, blocks, and eventual cban. GirthSummit (blether) 22:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Copied from David's talkpage:
Is it too late for me to explain to the Administrators what I meant by saying "minor infractions"? What I meant by these words is that, although what I did was definitely wrong, the majority of these infractions were done because of some misunderstanding by me in the application of my topic ban, and, in the final analysis, judges who adjudicated my cases did not see that these infractions warranted a permanent ban. Of course, this is not to say that what I did was right, as it definitely was not right. Moreover, I never repeated those same errors.Davidbena (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Support unban per LASTCHANCE, and the unblock request promising that the issues will not recur. I would not be opposed to making the unban conditional on a topic ban (I'd recommend the scope to be GENSEX and/or Judaism), but I would be equally fine with an unconditional unban. I am willing to give them one final chance to edit productively. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
A regretful oppose from me. Davidbena has a lot of knowledge, source access, and research skills that make him a strong editor. But we've tried too many TBANs—narrow, wide, intersecting—and are met with either TBAN violations or problems popping up in new areas. The block/ban/discussion history is evidence of many "last chances", and I think the community could use a break from this measured in years, not months.Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please keep an eye on user Bohemian_Baltimore for continual non-notable article creation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since 2023 This use has made created countless frivolous articles, many of the articles are simply article bloat that either doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability or topics should be added to an an already existing article. Others are purely unencyclopedic essays that don't belong on Wikipedia at all. ArslanKhan98 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we should discuss why you seem to think that PRODs can contain personal attacks against other editors with little or no policy-based explanation of why they should be deleted. I've declined them all. Are you seriously asserting that Lynching of American Jews (or any of the other "lynchings of ..." you've tagged) is a frivolous article? Acroterion(talk) 03:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
@Bohemian Baltimore wasn't given a link or told which noticeboard this was reported to, which I've fixed here.Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I find it confusing and can't identify the subject of the article. The majority of the article talks about how minority ethnic groups were fit into the rigid pre-Civil Rights racial system and other unrelated commentary. Relevant content should be merged into Irish Americans, Armenian Americans, etc, or the article should be moved into Racial classification of immigrant groups in the United States. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps when you've created any articles yourself you can enlighten us all on your great wisdom. TarnishedPathtalk 03:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
If the articles appear to be questionable, bring them to AFD. That said, Bohemian has created numerous great articles and I salute their efforts, even if they sometimes have beaten me to it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
@ArslanKhan98 your account is less than 6 months old and has only 68 edits, only a fraction of which involve contributing actual content, Bohemian Baltimore has over 125k in over 10 years. Can you explain why you suddenly decided to PROD a whole string of an experienced contributors articles? That is not normal behavior at all for an account with less than 50 meaningful edits. Seems likely based on this and your previous edit summaries that you have been around a while and this is just a new account. As it stands the rash of PRODs are highly disruptive and seem like a personal vendetta, and unless you have a good explanation, that's going to lead in short order to your account being blocked instead. Mfield (Oi!) 04:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I think we need a BOOMERANG here but I'm not sure what sort. Is it worth digging into any possible sockpuppetry or should it just be handled as disruption? --DanielRigal (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
There's not enough for a checkuser. It's simpler just to block them as WP:NOTHERE unless they provide a decent explanation. TarnishedPathtalk 09:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Whenever I'm feeling frivolous and gay, that's when I sit down to do my Shoah and lynching research. I'm struggling to see how an article on discrimination against Sámi people, which is notable and widely noted in every Scandinavian country, is either frivolous or obscure. My frivolous Holocaust-related articles such as Deutsch-Israelitischer Gemeindebund and Bertinistraße were translated from portions of the original German articles, so the Germans have already deemed these topics notable. I could go on, but if OP has an objection to any article or its contents, they could have nominated the article for deletion or added their criticisms to the talk page with actual reasons given aside from bloated frivolity, which is not a valid reason. We can talk about notability, we can talk about article content...but frivolous? I don't think I've ever been accused of frivolity before. The preponderance of my articles are topically quite grim. I'm a bit stumped by this recent rash of nominations. I have never been treated this way before. I find this all quite unsettling. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Please try not to be unsettled, although I know that's easier said than done. I see nothing wrong with your edits, but plenty with ArslanKhan98's. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
@ArslanKhan98 there was less than a minute between some of your prods. Can you explain to us how you read an entire article and checked its references in that time? Nil🥝 10:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Clearly they didn't check the sources before adding this complaint to an article that they didn't attempt to PROD. (Well, that's the only AGF interpretation, anyway.) They say "Not a single source mentions a "becoming white thesis"." when the very first source on the article is titled The "Becoming White Thesis" Revisited. Never mind a quick google, CTRL-F could have avoided that one. I know that anybody can make a glaring mistake from time to time but, taken with all the PRODs, one has to conclude that this has more to do with an unexplained beef with Bohemian Baltimore than with the articles themselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Boomerang INDEF applied to ArslanKhan98. I went with Not Here, but DE works just as well. They're welcome to make a convincing Unblock request that addresses their conduct. StarMississippi 18:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an editnotice please be made for Talk: Meg Griffin?
An editnotice is not needed. See {{FAQ}} instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm requesting that an editnotice be made for the talk page for Meg Griffin regarding her real name. Although many people in the talk page have tried to say otherwise, the consensus in the talk page is that "Megatron" is not Meg's real name. In particular, I want people to read the editnotice before people make an edit request. I am posting this request to AN because I myself am not an administrator, template editor, or page mover. If this is not considered an AN matter, I apologize. Thank you. NotJamestack (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The CheckUser team is seeking new Sockpuppet Investigations (SPI) clerks. Clerks are responsible for assessing the evidence available in SPI cases, endorsing SPI cases for CheckUser attention, resolving SPI cases by recommending blocks or other administrative action (if the clerk is not already an administrator), and generally managing the SPI process. Administrators do not need to serve as SPI clerks to adjudicate SPI cases, but the role comes with training and mentorship that can be helpful even for existing administrators who want to help out. Clerks and patrolling administrators are the backbone of SPI, and we are deeply grateful to them.
In addition to the typical on-wiki application process, we will accept applications by email directly to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org within the next two weeks (by approximately November 25).
In addition, if you are interested in the role but are not certain you'd like to apply, we invite you to reach out–I personally am always glad to talk about the role. Speaking personally, I served as an SPI clerk for four years becoming a CU (three years as a non-admin) and especially enjoyed the problem-solving nature of the role. This page also documents some useful advice for prospective clerks.
Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 22:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
And, just to make it extra clear: non-admins are encouraged to apply. Just because most current SPI clerks are admins doesn't mean you have to be one. I'm quite jealous of the arbs and their five new clerks, so please consider tossing your name in.:) -- asilvering (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll second what Asilvering has said: we need new clerks, and they need not be admins, just experienced and clueful contributors willing to work carefully on an important behind-the-scenes part of the project. It ain't glamorous, but it's necessary, and any help would be much appreciated! GirthSummit (blether) 22:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, you're not wrong about it not being glamorous. But you do get to boss around the checkusers. Which is its own kind of fun. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
So now you're a kind of... autoboss? Roll out, I suppose. GirthSummit (blether) 23:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Less threatening than À la prochaine, however, let alone adieu.—Odysseus1479 23:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Dammit, does this mean I should get my finger out and finally start wearing the (trainee) hat I asked for? Sheesh. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes. So there. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Problems with edits being serially reversed back and forth on the entry Obama–Trump voters
Not an AN matter. Rusalkii (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the entry Obama–Trump voters at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters there is now a recurrent problem with the reversal of edits to keep the article more concise and simple so that it doesn't get bogged down by excessive very granular statistical errata (about historical 'swing states' votes) which doesn't substantially contribute to the objective of the article. The editor who is most prominent in seeking to repeatedly add the unnecessary statistical complexity is Batong1930 and more recently Igor123121. Multiple attempts to roll back the excessive additions are simply reversed later by Batong1930 or Igor123121. Rather than continue this tit-for-tat reversal war, we really need admins to weigh in to determine whether the article should be kept more concise (and more in its original state) or granular and heavily statistically detailed with historical swing state data. I've noticed that admins have reigned in Batong1930 on other articles. See the talk page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Batong1930 It would be good to have that scrutiny on the Obama-Trump voters article. We need this article to regain some basic stability and usefulness. Batong1930 and some other editors also seem to be serving one particular political view or another rather than simply establishing an objective factual record. Admin help would be much appreciated. The swing states analysis would be better as a stand alone separate article posted expressly for the purpose of showing that data. ~2025-34161-29 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I notice that the talk page of the article is completely empty. Please do try to talk to each other first before reporting conflicts to noticeboards. Also, this looks like a content issue, which admins have no particular powers over. If talking it out the normal way doesn't work, take a look at WP:Dispute resolution. Rusalkii (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Report a disruptive user
Not an AN matter. Rusalkii (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trueverdicts(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) has repeatedly deleted valid references and tampered with content without basis in entries related to Syria. This constitutes a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and we request that his account be banned. Manilano12 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, this appears to be a content dispute. I'd recommend talking with the user first, preferably on the affected article's page. One content dispute is highly unlikely to lead to a long-term block. Also, from what I see, there doesn't appear to be a severe violation in guidelines. They seem to remove some unsourced information (which can be challenged and removed). If you disagree, talk it out. jolielover♥talk 17:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Yamla
More information Started by a banned user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC) ...
Started by a banned user. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Yamla for Yamla to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.
Just a FYI. User:Paserb currently has 13 edits. No comment on the merits of Yamla as an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
What? Yamla didn't make that block and defended the username here saying it was fine! Even if it wasn't, this doesn't justify revoking adminship. I'm not sure you've properly thought this through or researched it. You're proposing something very serious and should take care when doing it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Not an extended-confirmed editor, so this is an invalid petition. Also, all of user's 13 edits were today, although the account was created a month ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Shower thought: does the person initiating the petition actually need to be EC? They didn't actually sign the petition themselves, and the RfC only concluded that the 25 signatories need to be EC. WindTemposthey(talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Paserb is clearly trolling/an LTA shit-stirring/NOTHERE *(delete as applicable). Please block immediately. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Daniel Green was created by Paserb and can also be tagged G5. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Deleted, user blocked... CatfishJim and the soapdish 13:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. Can we close this, or do people want to discuss what happens next time a non-EC user tries this in better faith? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd have thought that if a non-EC user does it, contrary to policy, simply deleting it, and explaining why on the user's talk page would be perfectly adequate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Adequate, yes, but I'd prefer to head off any "admins protecting their own" arguments as far in advance as possible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not an admin (and have no ambitions to become one, which is just as well considering my block log...) And it just seemed sensible. Even 'good intentions' shouldn't be encouraged where people are leaping headfirst into things they really shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
No qualms here, it was blatantly bad faith and filled with incorrect information that I presume they didn't think we'd actually check - I can't see how a genuine editor would have made those kinds of errors. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with AndyTheGrump. What happens depends on whether we follow the letter or the spirit of the rules, and everyone should know which. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but I agree with speedy close as this was started by a now indefinitely blocked user. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems unusual to have a deletion review languishing this long, let alone two. If any uninvolved admins are willing to take on closing either or both of these (which have had stale discussion for a while) to find consensus/resolution, it would be greatly appreciated. FWIW, they've been listed at WP:CR for some time with no luck. Left guide (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Doing... Swedish Hockey. Toadspike[Talk] 23:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Done that one. Toadspike[Talk] 23:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Done the other one. Toadspike[Talk] 16:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Arbitration
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RFC: Should we equalize/remove the difference in autoconfirmed time between non-Tor and Tor users, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sohom (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Not done These do not meet the G6 criteria. The first does need fixing of a double redirect after a recent page move, which I will now go and do. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Done. As it's my first time, please let me know if I made any mistakes. Salvio giuliano 07:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I said I'd never edited LGBT-related content before, not that I'd never participated in such topics at all. It's important to realize that content = main namespace articles, and content ≠ all namespaces. BZPN (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/UtherSRG for UtherSRG to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.
lists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you. Editors are also encouraged to reach out to any active clerk to discuss their suitability, the clerk's experiences, and any other questions that may be helpful to address.
Urgent:
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Enable the user info card
Miscellaneous
