Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive379

Regarding activist Susan Abulhawa controversies regarding statements on the Ukraine war and criticism from Ukrainian activists, @Raskolnikov.Rev repeatedly removed any mention of this controversy from the page on the basis that there was no "sustained coverage". Despite being presented with evidence that it was mentioned in news stories over the next few years, the editor did not budge. It was also suggested by another editor that her remarks on the 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting had been removed without sensible reason. Does it make any sense that a highly covered story bear no mention on a biography page whatsoever, not even when one edit I added regarding the controversy was just 2 sentences long? JPHC2003 (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Those two links are from September 2025, over 5 months ago. I see there was discussion at Talk:Susan Abulhawa#Ukraine controversy but the last comment there was December 2025. Is there anything newer than that? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• As CambridgeBayWeather points out, there was a discussion, and you can always start a new one on the talk page to seek consensus. There isn't anything here in the report that indicates admins need to get involved, as they don't determine content. Unless you show edit warring or some other behavioral issue that actually breaches policy, it isn't ripe for discussion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@JPHC2003 is misrepresenting the edits in question and the challenge of it by myself and other editors, and the fact that I am the only one being addressed here when other editors agreed with me is odd. He is also not adhering to the standard consensus-building process by seeking to obtain consensus for his edit through discussion and, if that fails, an RfC, instead making what appears to be a frivolous case here over what is a standard content dispute. Furthermore, he is resurrecting an issue from over 5 months ago, making it also likely stale.

As I noted in the discussion which for some reason JPHC did not link, the content JPHC sought to include in my view fails WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTNEWS standards. I cite from the relevant policies in my response. Another editor agreed with me. Furthermore, I noted that the specific edit in question fails WP:NPOV by only including the critical POV of the subject of the BLP, despite the source he himself cited for it including a response.

Regarding the other edit I challenged, this is also misrepresented. I invite editors to look at the rationale that was presented for it by that editor and my challenge of it noting that it not only fails the same aforementioned BLP criteria, but also WP:NOR as it stated in wikivoice what was not in the cited source but drawn from the editor's view of social media posts. This also violates WP:V. They in my view did not address these substantive objections, instead mass-linking critical pieces about the subject of the BLP, including many deprecated sources, without any serious attempt to show why the inclusion meets BLP, RS and V standards, or suggesting an alternative phrasing that does. Another editor agreed that my objection was legitimate. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Epstein files needs an experienced closer because there are BLP issues involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  +1 I looked at that AfD and chose not to comment on it because, yikes, it's a hot one. Not volunteering to be the closer despite being uninvolved, lol, this should probably be an uninvolved party with a strong history of closing contentious BLP structured discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think the world has yet created a person universally respected enough to be able to safely navigate this one without a headache. I think you pretty much have to do a panel on this one to share the pain. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sure that, whichever way this is closed, we haven't seen the last of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I just want to avoid seeing some newish editor doing a quick count and posting a NAC, not realizing that they are doing the wiki equivalent of painting a target on their back and then setting themselves on fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe a panel close would be best? I personally wouldn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole, but as part of a panel it would insulate the individual closers somewhat. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't taken part in RFA for a few years, but I would like closers (who are usually admins) to be both trustworthy and brave. Trustworthy in that they make the right decisions, and brave in that they state them fearlessly. I'm a bit agnostic about panel closes, precisely because they insulate the individual closers somewhat. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  One alternative is to have one closer with other admins endorsing. That gives everyone a single person to yell at, which is apparently a popular sport around here. (Most of the time, when you read the words "admin abuse" it is the admin who is being abused.) If the issue is super important or there is a real question about how our policies apply (neither seems to be the case here), an admin might even privately ask other admins for advice before publishing the finding. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Most of the time, when you read the words "admin abuse" it is the admin who is being abused. WP:OWB #37. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I can't help but notice that the nomination is for deletion reasons other than notability. Would this mean that votes solely based on notability wouldn't be considered when determining consensus on the actual deletion rationale? And for what it's worth, I second the idea having multiple closers in whatever form that may take. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have relisted it as an individual admin action, because I don't see sufficient engagement with the meat of the issue. I would be willing to serve on a closing panel. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  For any admin who is pondering whether to get involved in this, here is a related discussion that I started before someone else posted an AfD: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#We need a clear policy about being in the Epstein Files. IMO this is relevant because:

[A] it looks like some editors have been working on resolving the BLP issues while others deny that any BLP issue could possibly exist. (Typical argument: "we say 'No wrongdoing is established by merely appearing in the documents' in the lead so BLP violations are not possible".) An important question for the closer is what BLP violations were fixed after the early !votes were cast, and whether the editors working on the page are willing and able to resolve any BLP issues that remain.

[B] There are BLPs included on other pages such as Category:Jeffrey Epstein, Category:Relationships of Jeffrey Epstein, Connections of Jeffrey Epstein, and various "Relationship of X and Jeffrey Epstein" pages. These should be discussed on the BLPNB, not on the AfD page, and they too may require administrator intervention.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I am requesting the removal of my topic ban concerning Michael Jackson. Approximately 8 years ago I engaged in disruptive edits/edit wars with another user. This behavior justifiably led to my block, and shortly thereafter, I continued to create new accounts. Although I stopped making disruptive edits in terms of the content itself, I was still violating Wikipedia's terms of service by circumventing my block through the creation of new accounts, which was inappropriate. Since that time, I have made efforts to improve myself and adhere to proper conduct. 2 years ago I was unblocked from Wikipedia, and now I am seeking to have my topic ban lifted. I deeply regret my past actions and hope to be granted a second chance, as it now feels like forever since all that went down. Alessiorom13 (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Two things, one even if it ended with little comment you really should have mentioned and linked your previous appeal Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive372#Requesting an Unblock on my Topic Ban. Two while I'm not going to oppose this request even before I found your previous appeal I had similar thoughts to last time, while a lot of time may have passed since you got into trouble, your edit count is still very low. The point of being able to edit while being topic banned is to demonstrate you can do so constructively including handling disputes in other areas. And your topic ban is so narrow virtually the entire encyclopaedia is open to you but it seems you're only really interested in editing MJ related articles. As demonstrated by another dispute with different editors above #Michael Jackson--yes, we're still doing it, there is still a lot of controversy surrounding MJ, so it's easy for problems to arise. And while technically there's nothing wrong with an editor only really having an interest in articles related to Michael Jackson even by itself it generates concern. And when you've already gotten into problems there I think many editors are going to be deeply concerned about letting you back in with so little to suggest you'll stay out of trouble other than time. Perhaps we should just let you back in under some WP:LASTCHANCE and sink or swim scenario but do understand if that happens there is likely to be little tolerance for problems from you no matter if others have similar problems and there's a chance if you get into trouble again we might just block or site ban you rather than reimpose the topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

BTW the comment you made here about your socking likely isn't doing you any favours either, what you said when appeal your block was better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as too soon. You've made nine edits to mainspace since your last appeal on 24 June, with 36 in total since being unblocked (almost all are small edits to update box office figures). That's just not enough editing history to fairly judge whether it's a good time to remove your topic ban, so I'm unable to support it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and I propose Alessiorom13 is prohibited from further topic ban appeals until at least one year has passed and they've made at least 500 non-trivial edits to Article space. This user previously promised "I will for sure wait months and after a significant amount of edits before I even consider trying to appeal my topic ban." This has not happened and I think we should hold them to account for it. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The timing is not a good look. The topic ban was for disruptive editing related to Michael Jackson sexual assault allegations. There were new allegations last week and now there's suddenly a request for the topic ban to be lifted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to request administrative attention regarding the editing behavior of User:Kwamikagami on the article currently titled “Dagbanli language” (formerly “Dagbani language”).

Over the past several edits, the user has repeatedly (and you can see similar patterns on other African lanaguge articles of which he is clearly not a speaker of any but wrestles control over):

• reverted good‑faith corrections to the article title and content
• restored the colonial exonym “Dagbani” despite multiple explanations that the endonym used by native speakers is Dagbanli
• refused to engage in substantive discussion on the talk page
• dismissed local linguistic expertise and imposed their own preferred colonial terminology
• engaged in ownership‑like behavior, reverting immediately without consensus
• ignored requests to discuss the matter in depth before making further reverts

I am a native speaker of the language and have provided context, sources, and explanations for the correct endonym. This is passionate discussion in the Dagbanli community where we're trying our best to correct these colonial legacies on the internet starting from the Wiki projects where we can directly participate. The user has not provided counter reasonging beside saying "this is English", and instead continues to revert without meaningful dialogue.

Broader context

It is worth noting that Wikimedia has a long history of updating language names to reflect accurate endonyms, and many communities (including European ones) have successfully transitioned away from outdated or colonial exonyms.

In this context, the repeated reversion of endonym‑based corrections, without discussion or engagement, has the effect of undermining African editors, whose languages have historically been written and described by outsiders like Kwamikagami.

For those of us who are finally able to participate and correct long‑standing inaccuracies, this pattern of unilateral reverts by non‑speakers is discouraging and risks pushing out the very contributors who can provide accurate, community‑based knowledge. I am requesting admin intervention to:

• Ask the user to stop reverting without discussion
• Encourage them to participate in talk‑page consensus‑building

I am happy to provide diffs of the repeated reverts and attempts at discussion if needed.

Thank you for your attention. --Masssly (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

As I've noted at Talk:Dagbani_language#Title_change?, neither editor here has engaged on the talk page, and it falls to Masssly at this time to make their case for their changes on the talk page. Other than Masssly's own WP:CUTPASTE, which I've reverted and I expect should not be an issue going forward, this is a content dispute. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Masssly is now edit warring, so a WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate if they don't change course. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill: maybe partial block both from the article? @Bishonen: says I'm less patient than I used to be. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The status quo has been restored by another editor, so I'm hoping that maybe everyone involved can make their way to the talk page rather than edit warring, without requiring blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Masssly: We have an article on German language, not on "Deutsch"; likewise for "French", not "français", "Russian", not "russki", Chinese, not "Zhōngwén", "Welsh", not "Cymru", and so on and so on... Unless there are specific reasons for doing otherwise, Wikipedia's naming system uses the name most commonly used and understood in English. Neither for languages, for religions, for businesses, nor for anything else does Wikipedia give priority to how insiders prefer their subject to be presented to how it is usually presented by outsiders. You are, of course, perfectly free to propose changes to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, to require naming of articles to promote the preferences of involved people such as nationalists, but unless and until such changes are made, you should accept those policies and guidelines as they are, not as you would like them to be. I also note that you have criticised Kwamikagami for "unilaterally" changing relevant content of the article. You changed the name of the language without, as far as I can see, consultation or discussion, and subsequently you have repeated the change several times, despite being reverted by three different editors, and as far as I can see without being supported by anyone else. If you disapprove of unilateral changes of titles then I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on. JBW (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is a campaign to change the English name of the language, and it is picked up on by reliable sources (especially secondary sources such as other encyclopedias, ISO, Glottolog etc.), then Wikipedia will generally follow suite. You can even lead that campaign yourself, and if you're successful, we'll move the article accordingly. But we follow WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:TRUTH. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

follow suite ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Module:F1_2021_Results/testcases ~2026-16929-85 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

requesting to note that Ali Larijani is dead acourding to multiple sources ~2026-16749-16 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Per User talk:DorsetTiger - account has been blocked since October 2021 for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. Relevant comments from user:

I am requesting the standard offer as I have not edited for a number of years. I was younger and immature previously but wish to be given a second chance to edit more responsibly if possible.

The initial block to this account occurred back in 2021 when I was blocked for adding false information to the ‘Boyz' by Jesy Nelson featuring Nicki Minaj article, I was younger and acting silly and immature. I am back on Wikipedia now and have read the terms around correctly sourcing information and am now more grown up, the articles I wish to edit are sports and politics related, as they are my main interests...

I was frustrated at being blocked so created new accounts, but have now read the terms around sockpuppetry, I had been confused about what the term sockpuppet had meant but have read both the sockpuppet page and the duck page which talks about accounts editing with the same behaviour.

User seems to have grown up since then. Has confirmed they have read the relevant policy around editing and citing sources as well as sockpuppetry. Given how long it has been and the user's attitude in the unblock request, I am comfortable with an unblock. Pinging @Kinu as the original blocking admin if they have any other input. Sasquatch t|c 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Since this editor doesn't seem to be banned, couldn't they be unblocked as an individual admin action once a checkuser confirms there hasn't been any recent block evasion? {{checkuser needed}} to confirm no recent block evasion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  There are 1 confirmed and 1 suspected sock puppets, so they aren't WP:3X CBAN'ed and can be unblocked by individual admin action, I think. The text of 3X says it requires 2 confirmed cases of sock puppetry, but there is only one confirmed here. It's borderline though, so prehaps community consensus is better. MolecularPilot^Talk 22:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info! I'll make sure I just check in with a check user next time to confirm the number of socks before making a decision on whether to take it to AN or not. Sasquatch t|c 23:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Tentative support: I've had a look and it appears this is one of the edits that led to the initial block. They added bare URLs which isn't the best. The information in question appeared to have little to no relevance to the actual song. I don't think Sir Chris Whitty is somebody I would expect to be giving commentary on... Boyz by Jesy Nelson. I agree with what @Cullen said here. The subsequent sock puppetry after the block isn't great. This all took place four and a half-ish years ago (despite 2021 still feeling oddly recent!). If this editor has not abused multiple accounts in more recent times, I think they can reasonably be given the chance to try again. 11WB (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Remarkably, the Chris Whitty / Boris Johnson stuff was all true, but as you say wasn't related to the article in question - it would have been fine in Minaj's own article, but of course doesn't appear there because that article, like many of our pop star articles, is a massive exercise in whitewashing written by fans of the artist. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support, they deserve a second chance after maturing. Re-blocking is really easy if required, often I support many of these such cases. Of course, this is pending CU confirmation of no recent sock puppetry. Withdrawn per confirmed recent sock puppetry. This is really disappointing. MolecularPilot^Talk 22:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support pending clear CU. Last sock edit was just under 3 years ago so if this needs the community's go-ahead then I'm happy to lend my voice to that. They should take care if they want to edit about politics & consider getting a bit of experience in other subjects first, but that's just a suggestion that I'm making as an aside. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Checkuser note:: I'm disappointed to report that I believe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Footy updates is confirmed. I request a second opinion, probably from User:PhilKnight as they've been doing the SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Oh dear. That is unfortunate. Sasquatch t|c 23:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The technical evidence is as strong as it gets. They are Confirmed to Footy updates. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I initially closed this thread, but it looks like I was the original blocking admin. I've reopened it, but suggest someone else come along and close it and decline this user's request, now they are considered banned by the community. --Yamla (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawing support per the sock puppet findings. 11WB (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the template on their user page to represent their 3X ban now (and on Footy updates to indicate they aren't the sock master, as DorsetTiger is the older account). MolecularPilot _Talk 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by Afghanistan Mottahid on Afghanistan-related articles

Can any of the admins please put an end to this utter destruction of Wikipedia pages related to Afghanistan by the User @AfghanMottahid? This newly created account is editing extremely distruptively, as proven by his contrib log: . 81 edits since 31 January, without ever filing a single source. Rather, this user changes anything and everything that pleases their own narrative or view, particularily numbers about the "Sayyid/Sadat" and other ethnicities in general. Even after asking them to stop on talk pages and ANI's they won't do so.

After that, it is absolutely necessary (and quite frankly, long overdue) to extended-protect all pages that at least remotely touches the topic of ethnicity in Afghanistan, being it all provinces and districts of Afghanistan, at least the biggest cities, all ethnolinguistic and ethnoreligious groups, and even some ethnically significant personalities because they are extremely prone to disruptive editing of newly created users. AfghanistanMottahid's editing is only a symptom of this much, much larger problem, and just C- (or T-)banning them wouldn't solve the disruption because there are hundreds, if not thousands of them on the platform, all with their own mission of changing the articles according to their own narrative: @ArashArianpour888, @Panjsheri Tajik, @Gistoma, @~2026-96196, @Amir TJK (how are they even on this page still while they insult Hazaras as "faishas" several times???) to name but a few recent hoaxers, no to mention all of the editors and IPs without an account. I could go on and on...

I will provide a list of all WP articles worthy of extended protection soon. For the time being: is there a way to undo all edits by these users? -- SdHb (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Afghanistan Mottahid (talk · contribs), I've notified them. See Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm escalating this to ANI with concrete diffs so the admins have clear evidence to take actions. SdHb (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Could some other admins please come take a look at Talk:Child_sexuality#Sexualisation and the discussion there?

The short version is that TedEdwards (talk · contribs) removed an image with the claim that by adding it to the article it sexualizes the child and is thus illegal. Drew McNish (talk · contribs) reverted that removal and disagrees with TedEdwards. I believe that TedEdwards' interpretation is incorrect and veering into legal threat territory. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I refute the idea I am veering towards legal threats? I have not made any indication I want to start legal proceedings against any editor or Wikipedia as a whole. I am not a lawyer, so my legal reasoning could well be wrong but it is not threatening. My comments on U.S. law are that suggesting a non-sexual image of a naked child depicts sexualization of a child could be legally problematic (again in hypothetical proceedings I am not going to start or be involved in). While I'll leave most of this for the relevant talk page, my argument around using that image is not solely based on the law. --TedEdwards 23:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If I can say, I am not saying the image should stay or be removed either way. What I am saying is that if it is it should not be on false grounds as I think is the case, or that there may be other remedies. Also the legal threat matter doesn't concern me as I made no such accusations. Drew McNish (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I do also want to make clear that I have made two points pushing for the removal of the image; only one was mentioned by EvergreenFir. The other one I'll summarise as, given the photo of the naked child is not sexual, it is not relevant to a section about the Sexualization of children when no further context for the image was given. --TedEdwards 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Would you be alright with the idea of someone closing the thread? The person who added the image has been blocked indefinitely and the editor you were concerned about didn't really do anything wrong. I know you think it makes more sense for them to have brought their concerns up in a different way (per our conversation on your talk page) and that's definitely something people can disagree about on the merits, but I don't think a noticeboard discussion is really nessecary at this point? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Certainly. I'll close it now. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• CactusWriter (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This user is an administrator; as far as I recall, they already have all the permissions of TAIV by default, and even have the additional ability to automatically view temporary account IP addresses. Therefore, I request the removal of this redundant permission. Thanks. 浅村しき (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Materialscientist (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This user is an administrator, and the rollback right is clearly included in the administrator user group (rollback is part of the core administrator tools), so the rollbacker user group is redundant. Therefore, I request that this user group be removed. Thanks. 浅村しき (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Why should either of these things happen? GiantSnowman 19:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t quite understand what you meant. If you’re asking why they granted themselves redundant permissions, you’d have to ask them. If you’re asking why I made this request, it’s because I happened to come across it while browsing the logs, so I submitted it. 浅村しき (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is pointing out that your request lacks any indication that the world would be made better if someone acted on it. --JBL (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some kind of confusion/language barrier here. The person filing this has amassed >400 contributions but barely any in mainspace, and outside of English Wikipedia looks to be using the Commons as a filehost of their vacation pics.

Seems to be contributing in good faith given their reporting to the vandalism board, but there seems to be a misunderstanding of how things work here? Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: Could you please assume good faith? My main work here is anti-vandalism — reverting some disruptive edits or vandalism — and sometimes I haven’t paid much attention to the main namespace. As for Commons, my intention is to keep some scenic images for people to view, and possibly to include them in articles. How can you say that I’m using Commons as a file host?? Then what am I supposed to do on Commons??

I briefly looked through the instructions for permissions requests earlier, and from what I saw, requests for removal of rights should be made here, so I brought it here. Naturally, these rights should be redundant. I don’t see what the issue is with what I’ve done here — please state it clearly. 浅村しき (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing I've said lacks good faith. You seem to be attempting to be helpful with behind the scenes reporting/cleanup but this request to remove what you see as redundant rights permissions at AN is an odd one. I'll deal with the concerns I have about the Commons uploads there. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I expect (I can't be arsed to check) that they had those rights before they became admins. If they are included in the admin toolset then why should we bother about removing them? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I suggest this be closed. --JBL (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A check would show they were added more recently. I would just say it's usually more helpful to ask the admin directly, rather than immediately request removal here. And besides that, redundant right get occasionally cleaned up as part of routine non-urgent maintenance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a look here. Thanks Koshuri ^(あ!) 06:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no such editor on this project. No one listed at WP:EDITS has been blocked for anything resembling PIA. Perhaps Polymarket has conflated and combined one editor and all edits with the list of editors sanctioned due to ARBPIA5, but the math doesn't add up. Why are we giving blatant misinformation the time of day? And is AN really the right venue for this? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 07:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Turkish citizens

request, I would like to change the map and it's relationships with other countries for example,

• Azerbaijan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Georgia
• Moldova
• Serbia
• Ukraine

Since they have "freedom of movement" using only the biometric turkish national id. According to google, https://snipboard.io/h4YS9w.jpg The map of visa-free countries marks of turkey citizens "green sketch" on those countries i mentioned shall be sketched with "blue" to show a geographical movements of turkish republic. ~2026-18711-13 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if any uninvolved admin could have a look at the work of User:Bhdshoes2, spread out over a few talk pages and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do! I am getting absolutely dogpiled by superfans who keep smearing me like i am editing in bad faith (I am not) . We are still "doing it" because five new accusers just surfaced in the past week in the mainstream press (they filed a civil lawsuit), and the Leaving Neverland suit is the subject of new estate litigation. Certain single issue editors want Safechuck v. MJJ Productions deleted as well as Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2: As an uninvolved editor, I do believe that you're participating in good faith. But I also believe that you're causing yourself a lot of unnecessary grief by doubling down and assuming everyone else is acting in bad faith. I don't see any single-issue editors there, I see long-time respected members of the community citing legitimate deletion rationales. People are going to be understandably suspicious of your motive if you're so insistent on including content that's critical of someone, especially if you argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Wikipedia is hostile toward people if it seems like their edits are meant to "expose" someone or spread awareness about a scandal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

OK but they started it. (That was a joke- please don't ban me). I will be less snarky. I would just ask folks to engage with the content of my edits and not me personally like I'm some kind of suspicious character! It feels like "hey look over there" and an excuse to revert good edits. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2 what's up with Did you intend to give yourself a single topic notification or someone else. If someone else I do hope you didn't intend to put that notice on Drmies talk page since that's a laughable claim. If you intended to give it to yourself that's fairly weird, there shouldn't be anything in there you need help remembering and this isn't CTOP alert it seems pointless to give yourself a notice so no one else needs to. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No to my page to ward off the superfan dogpile who post on my page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To be frank, Bhdshoes is a cold man. Michael's dead. ~2026-15034-31 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful. Either engage positively or say nothing. • a frantic turtle 🐢 11:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

All of a Wikipedia account's activity is publicly viewable. The accounts you're calling "superfans" aren't even active in the Michael Jackson topic area. They're active at Articles for Deletion, where they routinely vote to delete articles for the reasons they explained. I've never seen this sort of doubling down and attacks against fellow editors end with anything except for being blocked from editing. I can only assume you'll accuse whatever admin imposes the block of being a "superfan" too, regardless of whether they've ever written anything about Michael Jackson in their lives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

oh im sorry- I didn't mean to insult. Or to double down. What I meant was, was to tell that poster that I absoluteky meant to put that "single issue editing is uncool" sign on my page since they thought it was a mistake. I used that phrase as shorthand meaning my thought process at the time I posted it to my own page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC).

How about rather than posting pointless notifications to yourself, you just cease editing voluntarily so someone doesn't have to block you. Alternatively improve your behaviour so there's no need to worry about notifications. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was unnecessarily accusatory in saying that Drmies was a single-issue editor in support of hiding well-sourced allegation material. My familiarity with that editing cohort is behind my mistake. FWIW, i did attempt to make peace just now on the talk page for yet another disputed Jackson page Safechuck v. MJJ Productionsnot that I think Drmies has any obligation to engage!) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bhdshoes2, Wikipedia is not news, and any single update to anything about the Jackson case(s) (on either "side") is not automatically qualified for mention on Wikipedia (undue, not notable, recentism, etc). When your edits have come under question, one of your responses was, for example, "how will researchers find/do anything?" But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database on all Jackson information, just like how it's not a flight itinerary, a travel brochure, or a soapbox. It's supposed to have a balance of detail for the average reader, so not all information is included. This is why other editors think you're coming from Reddit (not in the malicious sense), where a lot of subreddits focus on trivial documentation of everything possible. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a Wikipedia thing. I hope this helps. Crystalespeon (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That is fair. I do think though that if a reader wanted to know in 2 minutes how many accusers accused any other celebrity (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump) they can look that up on Wikipedia. Readers can't for Jackson. It seems like simple encyclopedia basic information to me, not an esoteric deep dive into Jackson minutia. But i hear you.Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I think it's important to remember that even if you are right (or you think you are right), if consensus says otherwise, you have to be patient and work together, and compromise with other editors. You should get a good result that way. Happy editing. :) Crystalespeon (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

yup. Thanks for your kind words Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look because of its edit summary; something about Special:Diff/1342434083 and the conversation leading to it is ... "cringe". The entire discussion could use a focus on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, at some point it gets to be a ridiculous time sink, and that's where uninvolved admins need to come and step in. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

user:Drmies I believe that comment was addressed to your comments as well. .Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

While true, I think the message got across :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

As I’ve posted elsewhere, this editor, along with a few other editors, appears to be coming from a subreddit. Some of which have already been banned already in the past. I previously took this user to the admins’ noticeboard for disruptive editing, WP:CANVASSING, and offsite canvassing on a similar topic, per the suggestion of NinjaRobotPirate about three years ago. HandThatFeeds even suggested blocking this user based on a personal attack mentioned in that specific thread. The editor stopped editing similar topics only to reappear after yet another discussion on Reddit, as you can see here and here.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

this is total nonsense. Once again you refuse to engage with page content so pivot to smears. You accuse EVERYONE of canvassing on Reddit. I distinctly remember you accused me falsely 3 years ago, the last time i edited these pages. The obly reason I am back on theMJ Wiki pages is because 1) the Robson trial is back all over mainstream press given estate dispute and 2) five new accusers from the Cascio family are in the press of last week. nd 3) wikipedia should be an encyclopedia not a fanzine. . Instead of smearing, why not explain why you keep redirecting Safechuck v. MJJ Productions to a 1993 page? Or why you keep trying to get Category: Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit: fixed link) deleted? There have to be content reasons. ~~~~ Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This is still ongoing with Bhdshoes2 failing to understand what Wikipedia is not and trying to pick fights. I find it hard to believe Bhdshoes2 can contribute constructively in this topic so long as they believe the editors cleaning up WP:ADVOCACY are actually some cabal of Michael Jackson superfans trying to sabotage coverage of the sexual abuse allegations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

wait what have I done wrong since I got brought up on charges? Have deleted the S word from my vocabulary! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to respond to this and to the message at my talk page at the same time in this thread. Just looking at edit summaries alone from the last few days, these are the ones that make false accusations against other editors of, or falsely imply that other editors are, maliciously hiding information:

• Special:Diff/1342983202: why are we deleting out accusers Jane Doe and eldest sibling Frank Cascio (who has been in the media for 20 plus years as a Jackson associate) but leaving in a bunch of nonsense about HBO's nondisparagment clause from an old concert film? Smacks of burying the info. Re-added Frank.
• Special:Diff/1342983824: Removing the paragraph on HBO litigation over a 6 year old documentary based on an old concert film clause. Nothing to do with allegations. Hides the ball (obviously). Is covered in multiple paragraphs on the Leaving Neveland documentarypage
• Special:Diff/1343002880: can someone PLEASE explain why this section is full of statements from people who say they were NOT molested but someone keeps deleting this actual legal accusation by the firm behind the Safechuck suit. That makes no sense. If you can have Feldman Culkin Barnes you can have the accusers in a section covering accusations
• Special:Diff/1343005678: way too outdated lawsuit info. The case is over 10 yrs old. Also it is an absolute joke to have this posthumous sex abuse allegations in an entry on this page nowhere visually near the other sex abuse allegations in his lifetime. Smacks of hidiing the ball from readers trying for an overview. But that is a fight for a different day.
• Special:Diff/1343034458: Adding "now." Funny how you impartial editors had Frank Cascio's abuse DENIAL statements and testimony and book all over this page and the trial page in 2023 per the archive. Now the joint is scrubbed clean of him at every turn. He was newsworthy when he said Jackson never touched him. Now he is memory holed. I re-added him below.

This accompanies the continued pattern of editing Wikipedia to right great wrongs. If you're looking for advice, my rule of thumb is that if you hold emotional beliefs about a subject, it is a bad idea to edit heavily in that topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

ok fine fair. I do actually believe that, not gonna lie. And if people who edit because "the wrongs must end!" should not be editing, then it is what it is. I hear you. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Feeling strongly about a subject is nothing to be ashamed of, it's part of being a normal human being.

It takes a skilled, self-aware human being to learn and understand when that passion is so strong that it has the potential to impact our judgement on opposing viewpoints.

It takes a bloody amazing human being to be able to judge when this is happening and also have the self-control to step away and let others take over the reins.

Treat this situation as a rung on the ladder to becoming a bloody amazing human being. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Appreciate it Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed My God! There are DOZENS of them!! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

wait. I'm the drunk driver right? And this means you all think I'm wrong about these pages being "wildly inebriated" neutrality-wise? In that case ... .... I'm getting banned aren't I. Sigh. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

People generally don't get fully banned from Wikipedia just for conduct in one topic area unless it's truly egregious. Usually it ends with any restrictions being limited to that one subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion about Michael Jackson and sexual abuse allegations. Didn't pay attention at the time, have never been curious since. I am just noting that it seems like a lot of people are disagreeing with you. That does not automatically mean that they are right. I wrote an essay just for people in your situation: You can read it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

this essay rules. Thank you. It captures exactly what (in part) goes on in terms of collective action from a contingent. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2; it's normal to be passionate about a topic. It's actually one of my favorite things about people, and what makes Wikipedia really great. What isn't normal on Wikipedia is getting to the point where everyone you disagree with is now seen as a "superfan" or "single-source/issue editor". Even if you are right (I wouldn't know, I started paying attention to society after any related scandal), being right isn't enough, and "winning" your arguments or disputes isn't the point of Wikipedia; it's to find consensus and to build a really great encyclopedia. If you can't edit about Michael Jackson in a manner that is collegiate and civil with editors, even ones you really disagree with, then you shouldn't edit there, period. I would rather the community not have to enforce that through a topic ban. You've acknowledged that you went too far, so the next step is to course correct your behavior going forward. My advice to you would be to stop making accusations about people's motives, tone down the snark, and to take a step back for a day or two to try editing something else. It really is fun to hit "random article" and correct typos or fix some grammar as a palette cleanser, or picking a backlog to try your hand at. When you're ready to come back to the topic with fresh eyes, focus on the content like ToBeFree said. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Yeah. It really is what it is. Even if there is a long-standing community of Michael Jackson enthusiasts reverting every single edit, that definitely isn't every editor here as was pointed out above, and I can't change that by hollering about it. I need to just not edit the pages, at least for awhile. I mean it is frustrating. 13 former child companions have accused the dude as of 2026 and the fact those allegations were made (not saying they are true, saying they were made) is functionally scrubbed. But snark is just not a solution. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I still have remaining concerns regarding the continued editing pattern of this editor. The editor appears to be consistently focused on expanding coverage related to the sexual abuse allegations involving Michael Jackson, raising significant questions about neutrality and due weight.

As I noted above, the user participates in an external forum where discussion is explicitly limited to the viewpoint that Jackson is guilty. While off-wiki activity alone is not determinative, this context may help explain the single-purpose nature of their contributions here. Despite repeated advice, suggestions, and concerns raised by multiple editors, including administrators, the editor has continued this pattern. Most recently, they initiated a new thread proposing the creation of a dedicated navbox exclusively for these allegations, and have been notifying multiple related talk pages to advance this proposal. A draft version has already been created in their sandbox. As I see it, this is both redundant, given the existing Template:Michael Jackson, and risks giving undue prominence to a single aspect of the subject. Such a standalone navbox focused solely on allegations appears inconsistent with common practice here on Wikipedia, even in cases involving individuals such as Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, where convictions were actually handed out.

This conduct suggests that Wikipedia may be being used as a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Given the persistence of this behavior despite prior advice, I believe a topic ban related to editing content about Michael Jackson and associated allegations should be seriously considered to prevent further disruption and to ensure compliance.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

They're still trying to engage in WP:ADVOCACY on this issue? Yes, it seems a topic ban is the only way this will stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit disappointed to see that, since agreeing to stay away from the subject and acknowledging that it's not a good idea to edit subjects where you have a strong bias , they've only edited topics that directly relate to the allegations against Michael Jackson.

I'm wondering if a TBAN would be in their best interests, since they've not been able to stay away from the topic on their own & have essentially become an SPA.

On the plus side, they've not persisted in the original assuming of bad faith and have stayed polite from what I can see.

Can someone please confirm whether TBAN's be proposed/supported here, or must they go to ANI? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:CBAN, topic bans can be proposed and discussed at both AN and ANI. In addition, Michael Jackson is a contentious topic area so AE is also an option, and I'm pretty sure an uninvolved admin can issue an "on the stop" topic ban as well. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I would support a TBAN, I might wait a few hours to see if an admin wants to place it themselves or would prefer community discussion first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

wait a minute! I haven't edited ANY mj pages since I promised not to! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I PROPOSED a edit on the talk page! And did an RfC as I was told to in the essay about that was linked on the drunk driving metaphor. I have not done one singls solitary edit to an MJ related page since we spoke. This is an effort to shut down discussion. I voluntarily promised to not edit the MJ pages and stuck to it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If someone can find one single solitary edit I have made to one single solitary jackson page, it would lile to see it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

and my nav box talk page proposal was simply an effort to reach consensus on the deletion of the Safechuck page. I was saying "hey go ahead and delete it but maybe we should have some way folks can navigate this topic?" Absolutely no engagement - rather, the editor came here ... Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Not the article pages themselves, but you've been very active on Michael Jackson article Talk pages to discuss editing the articles, including the Michael Jackson page itself, the trial and FBI files.

This honestly goes against the spirit of agreeing to stay away, you've just moved onto the Talk pages instead.

You explicitly agreed to stay away from MJ pages, which logically includes the directly-associated article Talk pages. I don't think anyone here imagined that you intended to carry on using the Talk pages to propose edits to the articles - I certainly didn't.

You've even created an RFC , and a navbox to be included directly in the article, so how is this staying away from editing any Michael Jackson-related pages? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There was a link above to that very idea in an essay where the admin made the metaphor about drunk driving. If you think a topic has been captured by a group of editors, don't be rude to them. Instead, do RfCs. And my navbox proposal was in response to the deletion proposal for Safechuck. But im so confused as to why you wouldnt want my input on talk pages if it isnt changing the actual pages. The whole reason I stopped editing was because overly passionate editors (I am passionate about neutrality not MJ) should not be editing. But why dont you want me on talk pages? I dont want to write my ideas where they arent wanted so not arguing. Just wondering why? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

ps - I wont edit the talk pages either if that is what you all want. Im not here to argue. You guys are are the Wiki policy experts not me. But I do want it noted that absolutely none of my talk page edits were about anything other than navigation among existing pages. That is not ADVOCACY or SOAPBOX. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the concern is primarily because most of our posts were encouraging you to explore unrelated subjects & topics, but a week later you've exclusively focused on the same area that you've had problems with - allegations against Michael Jackson.

That's a very, very narrow topic compared to the millions of available Wikipedia articles, so it's a bit concerning to see that you're apparently uninterested in working on anything else right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

OK then I wont write talk commentary any more. I do want to say I take being a person of my word very seriously and if you want to expand the no-go zone to talk discussion then so be it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a really good idea - if you can work on other topics then that'll do a lot to assuage people's concerns, and also greatly reduce the risk of other editors bringing this back to admin boards.

Think of it like an unofficial voluntary topic ban from Michael Jackson-related subjects, at least for the moment? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

ok it is a deal- thanks. I promise. Consider me self-banned from all things Jacksonian, both the live pages and discussion pages. The post talking about my writing in my sandbox and in the talk pages on that proposed navbox, to which I was NOT notified, did feel designed to provoke the admins into falsely thinking I betrayed their trust, and get me banned, which I think is very uncool, but I can only control my own self. I ain't writing any more where it ain't wanted and appreciated! Thank you for your patience. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)