Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive374

Unblock/unban request from Rosenborg BK Fan

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 copying over an unblock request from Rosenborg BK Fan. Their block was placed as a result of Nationality-based attack by Rosenborg BK Fan, so could be considered a WP:CBAN. That references a prior block which was the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Help_with_bigotry_&_xenophobia. I currently take no position on whether or not BK Fan's request should be granted, I am simply presenting it to the community for discussion. Note that I'm away starting on Saturday, so hopefully others can copy over any of BK Fan's responses. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good day! I truly hope this message finds anyone reading it well! I am hereby applying for an unblock request once again in the hope that this time my unblock request will be taken into consideration. I would like to enlist a series of noteworthy reasons for which I personally consider that I deserve to be unblocked but, first of all, I would like to sincerely apologise for my previous disruptive behaviour and acknowledge the fact that it was entirely my fault. The previous disruptive behaviour, from my particular perspective at least, occurred mostly on my talk page and not within the main space (i.e. it was definitely not vandalism).

As I previously mentioned, I would like to enlist a series of noteworthy reasons for which I honestly believe that I deserve to be unblocked:

1) I did not create any alternative accounts during this relatively long blocked period on Wikipedia (nor do I personally want to create any in the future as well as I perceive this particular aspect, solely for me and in personal regards, counterproductive).
2) Over the passage of time, I have created several meaningful articles (the vast majority of which can still be read and were therefore not deleted) and contributed a significant number of positive edits which are still in place across the English Wikipedia.
3) I am not blocked on any other version of Wikipedia nor am I any longer blocked on Wikimedia Commons.
4) Wikipedia has been a very dear and important part of my life and a tremendously useful project in which I contributed in the past and I am willing to contribute more (including on this version of this project) in the future. It is a precious source of information which I highly respect. Additionally, I also donated in the past for keeping it up and running and I intend to do so in the future as well.
5) I am a user who considers himself predominantly non-conflictual, polite, responsible, and able to contribute to the best of my capabilities on a wide range of subjects.
6) I have a series of approved contributions on other projects which are still in place and I am an active contributor on several other versions of Wikipedia as well.
7) After the last unblock appeal (which was partially accepted and for which I am deeply grateful to this day), access to my talk page was restored. Even though my previous unblock request was not taken in consideration at that time (a decision which I respect), I did not (and will not) use my personal talk page for disruptive editing or any other personal rants which are obviously not allowed and extremely counterproductive for this project, even on a personal talk page.
8) I am a user who strongly believes in and supports the culture of dialogue.
9) For some of my contributions (which were deemed relevant enough for this project), I received a thank you note at the beginning of this page.
10) Last but not least, I consider the fact that I learnt my lessons quite well, I understand very well why I was blocked, it was my fault, and, once more, I would like to sincerely apologise for the inconveniences that I created. Furthermore, I strongly believe that, if unblocked, I will still be a valuable and productive contributor (to the best of my capabilities, that is) to this version of this project.

Therefore, these are the main reasons for which I consider that I deserve to be unblocked, if deemed acceptable that is. Lastly, thank you very much for your time, attention, and readership! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The above was copied over from User talk:Rosenborg BK Fan. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - admins should see UTRS appeal #104345, which was declined for not adequately addressing the reasons for their block (which go much deeper than just "disruptive editing"). This request is essentially a copy of that UTRS, but also see their UTRS history of repeatedly submitting unsuitable appeals, and resubmitting copies of appeals that have already been declined, both after being told to stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Copied over from BK Fan's talk page:

I just read what a certain admin/user wrote about my unblock request in the respective space. First of all, I'd like to thank him for his time and reply. Secondly, I want to underline here that the technical reason (which is also stated in my block log) is disruptive editing per ANI if I'm not mistaken. I also acknowledge the fact that what the respective user/admin mentioned there is correct and for this particular inappropriate aspect I also extended sincere apologies (on more than one occasion).

However, my genuine remorse keeps getting rejected and ignored in spite of my goodwill and willingness to change. While it is true that my past behaviour which led to that block was more than just disruptive editing per se (a decision of opposition of the respective user/admin which I respect, cannot contest, and is accurate), I felt threatened here, met with relative indifference, or a subversive passive aggression (which I do not want to reply with in the same manner and I respect these particular decisions as well), only because I wanted to communicate and reply to another user and I had to reword (in a non-controversial manner) some of my previous replies.

From my particular perspective, it is very sad that after all the relevant reasons that I enlisted, after all the time that I invested here, the polite and appropriate as well as respectful messages that I submitted so far, I am still met with coldness, but I respect the respective admin's decision as such. Lastly, I feel humiliated... Either way, I genuinely wish the respective user all the best and plenty of success here on Wikipedia and beyond. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - they seem to have a good sense of what they did wrong and are committing to not cause similar issues again. They've been active globally, and I don't see obvious issues there. They were unblocked on Commons before coming here, so the admins there took them seriously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  P.S. I am very grateful for the time, attention, and decision of user/admin SarekOfVulcan. Finally, I feel understood! The respective reasons perfectly sums up how I feel (i.e. 'they seem to have a good sense of what they did wrong and are committing to not cause similar issues again.') Once again, I am not a threat to this project, on the contrary, I respect, I appreciate it very much, I even love it because it helped me in many ways throughout my life and all I want is to give a little bit of what I can on as many constituent versions of Wikipedia as possible, especially on the English Wikipedia where I've been active the most throughout the passage of time. Furthermore, I am not a vandal nor do I breach other rules in the main space. I can collaborate quite well with other users and show as much gratitude and respect for their help and guidance whenever needed. I strongly believe in the culture of dialogue, I mentioned this before and I am mentioning it once again. All the best and plenty of respect, SarekOfVulcan! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Above copied from BK's talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• I am only writing this here as my final comment before potential admins (whom I respect regardless of what I perceive as their opposition or hate or disrespect towards me, despite my continuous rightful efforts to change, identify what was wrong, and prove that I can change) and their decisions: I will wait for a final consensus in the respective talk space to be reached when it will be reached and not remove my unblock request from my talk page. From my understanding and humiliation by now (which, from my understanding once again, could potentially bring happiness to some users I presume), I think we all know what the result would be. If it is opposition I can't but respect your decision and never apply for another unblock request here (although I respected Wikipedia's guidelines for unblocking on more than one occasion) as I take I am blocked for life (even though, technically, an admin could not tell me this particular aspect per se, but it's crystal clear). No genuine apology or remorse seems to be enough here and that is fine by me now. It's just that I too was humiliated way too much (and one cannot change how some feel behind the screens, so to put it) and I sincerely wish no one involved in this discussion feel what I am feeling right now (you wouldn't even be able to understand me at all, but that's completely fine as I am not asking for something that absurd here). In the end, I truly wish this great project which Wikipedia is (and, implicitly, the English version of Wikipedia) will thrive in the future and become better and better, more reliable, more well-sourced, and with fewer and fewer main space-based technical or factual problems. I truly wish this particular change should happen with or without me. That is what I wish in genuine good faith/goodwill for this project. Oh, and last thing: I truly wish no one would feel what I am feeling right now or go through the multiple humiliations and indifferences that I went through while respecting the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia in terms of unblocking. Whatever decision you reach I respect it and genuinely wish you plenty of success here in whatever you do and all the best even if you despise me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Copied over from BK's talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. BK's continued statements that he's being humiliated and that other editors are just seeking to undermine him does not bode well for constructive editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Voorts; this editor is playing the victim card and it doesn't sit well. GiantSnowman 20:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• I think this and this constitute a withdrawal of this request, but since I've !voted here, I won't close it. I would also recommend revoking TPA. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good day! I truly hope this message finds anyone reading it well. I want to hereby clearly withdraw my former unblock request so as not to leave room for any ambiguity regarding the last failed attempt and so that the respective section involving me on the AN can be officially closed as I do not want to waste anyone else's time (an important aspect which is quite common sensical on my behalf). Lastly, I want to genuinely thank all users involved in the respective section for their time, attention, and readership, and, in particular, I am very grateful to the understanding of SarekOfVulcan whom I respect very much (for many years on Wikipedia, believe it or not, I finally felt myself understood by someone and this felt priceless). Last but not least, I truly respect the decision of opposition towards my previous failed unblock request and I strongly believe that I deserved it and I sincerely apologise for wasting some users' time. I feel already very bad about it. Plenty of success here on Wikipedia and a great time editing in the main space and beyond! Please forgive me for this additional unwanted inconvenience. All the best and plenty of respect! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to highlight that I am not a victim (and sincerely apologise if that came off as such when that was definitely not my intention and not the case) and that the final reached decision in the respective space is just (i.e. it is an overwhelming 3-1 no vote which I fully respect and cannot contest under any sort of circumstance as I have absolutely no right to do so). Thank you once again and I apologise for wasting your time as I truly did not mean it. All the best once more and take care! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The two above comments were copied from Rosenborg BK Fan's user talk page at Special:Permalink/1308433330. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 29 August 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.

No longer require new pages reviewer permission

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 I have this permission from the days when I was a Twinkle developer, but I haven't been active in that space for some years, nor have I ever been an active reviewer. Thank you for removing the permission from my account. This, that and the other (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Removed. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 24 August 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 "temporary" indefinite block

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 all, I have a "temporary" indefinite block on my account which reads, “Temporary block until editor responds to recent questions about their edits on Jewish terrorism.” I have responded to all of the questions on my talkpage in this section: here, here, and here. I outlined that my edits were made in good faith. I also made a discussion about them on the talkpage at the time, and only got one reply. I did not undo the reversion of my edits because the user who made the comment made a good argument and I did not feel the need to contest it further. A couple of editors were concerned with some of the edits I made and mentioned it on my talkpage. While I meant to respond to the editors, including @Doug Weller: @Sean.hoyland: and @Theofunny: I got busy with other things and forgot to respond.

Several weeks later, on August 2nd, I received a block that seemed intended to force me to respond to questions about my edits. Over the course of the month, I responded to the questions raised, as the blocking admin requested. I had responded to the article's talkpage as well as to the questions on my talkpage. I made sure to acknowledge where I went wrong with my edits and how I would improve in the future. Namely, that I understand now that WP:EXCEPTIONAL only applies in extremely rare cases when it pertains to removing sourced content, and that my edit summaries in the past were not as detailed as they should have been and I will make them more detailed moving forward. Two days after the block, the blocking admin Doug Weller stated, “I'll leave it to another Admin to decide.” I asked for clarification regarding his block on his talkpage and did not receive a response. Then, I responded to his comment on my talkpage asking for further clarification if any of the conditions regarding my block remain outstanding. He still has not responded to those inquiries.

I feel like I have tried everything. I feel I have done my best to address the reasoning provided for the block on my talkpage and elsewhere. I have appealed the block three times. I have taken this to the Teahouse. I even learned how to operate the Libera IRC Chat as is recommended by Help:I have been blocked.

I am starting to feel incredibly hopeless.

I have acknowledged what I will do better moving forward, specifically making more detailed edit summaries, and not removing sourced content. Though I initially removed some content citing policy mentioned above, I now realize that in order to remove sourced content, it must first be taken to the talkpage for consensus to be reached, even if that is my rationale. I also realize now that my edits may not have been as supported by policy as I had first believed, something I would have learned if I took it to the talkpage first. I have been editing for over two years and I have never been blocked before. I acknowledge where I fell short in my comments, but this whole process has been insanely frustrating and I have felt ignored and left in the dark, like someone threw me in a prison and lost the key. Is this "temporary" block truly going to last forever? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I told you what you still needed to respond to: why were you using misleading edit summaries? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not, as you stated above, that your edit summaries were not detailed enough. It was that they were fundamentally misleading. Until you can honestly and adequately respond to straightforward questions without deflecting, you will remain blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

When I deleted Zealotry in the 1st Century, there was only one source that listed the Zealots as terrorists. I removed the content per the policy reason stated above and put the edit summary, "rm content overly reliant on one source." What I should have done here is (1) not remove the sourced content and instead have taken it to the talkpage to see if WP:EXCEPTIONAL applied here (this of course would apply to all three) and (2) assuming that did not happen (which it would not moving forward) put the edit summary, "Removed the sec. Zealotry in the 1st Century per WP:EXCEPTIONAL in which "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Only one source listed mentioning them as terrorists"

The other two are pretty similar, I removed a Mandatory Palestine section because I thought WP:EXCEPTIONAL applied because it was a whole section based on one source. The edit summary was "rm content overly reliant on one source." Instead, I should have put "removed Mandatory Palestine section per WP:EXCEPTIONAL in which "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", only one source lists this as terrorism."

The third edit on Jewish terrorism has the following edit summary, "rm unsourced content." I stated on my talkpage that my rationale for this edit was, "I did this based on my understanding from a past discussion I had seen somewhere in the past where it said every sentence required a source but I am thinking now that this must have been incorrect, or I misinterpreted the discussion." Therefore, now I would have made the edit summary, "Removing uncited sentences in Post-1948 sec., more sources are needed to bolster the content asserted." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. What about Special:Diff/1292754088/1293772349? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Generally, my thinking was that a lead should summarize the body. However, in this case, the content was word-for-word copied from the criticism section, I felt that removing it from the lead made it more streamlined. It seemed overstated rather than summarized, which felt WP:Undue for inclusion in the lead, but should definitely be included in the body. In hindsight, I think that the wording in the edit summary should have been more clear, along the lines of, "Removed to streamline lead that had duplicate AIPAC criticism per WP:UNDUE in which "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think Gjb has explained what went wrong and committed to proper communication going forward. Okay if I unblock? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead. Might not matter anyway, given the US has requested all Arbcom records, etc, Wikipedia as we know it might not be around much longer. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what @Voorts says here, Admins are volunteers. Your pending unblock request is no more important than anyone else's. It will be reviewed and actioned when an admin feels their concerns are answered. Star Mississippi 00:37, 27 August 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.

Inactive mentors

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.

---

Hopefully this is the right place to request a non-urgent admin action. Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list#Mentors automatically assigned to new accounts (scroll down to the table and sort by active data ascending) lists about 4 active mentors who have not been active for at least a month. It would be great if someone would change their status to "Away", as newbie questions are not being answered. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I have been manually doing this at the two-month threshold for a while when I remember. While I don't have any objection to setting a smaller threshold, I think the community should agree on how long we should wait before setting someone as away. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

See WT:Growth Team features#Mentor inactivity threshold. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:41, 28 August 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.

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of AmandaNP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)

Request for Restoration and Merging of Deleted Articles and Wikidata Items – Honoring Sheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi

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 Administrators, I am Hidaya Chemmad, and I am writing to respectfully request the restoration of content from three previously deleted articles related to Sheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, a globally respected Islamic scholar and the current Vice Chancellor of Darul Huda Islamic University, Kerala. He is widely recognized as one of the foremost Muslim thinkers of our time — a visionary leader, reformist educator, prolific author, and an influential voice in global Islamic discourse.

He is the founder of a progressive Islamic academic movement in Kerala, combining traditional scholarship with modern pedagogy, and has made lasting contributions to the development of Islamic higher education. His scholarship has positively impacted communities across the globe, earning recognition not only in India but also in the Arab world, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

He maintains an official website and is listed on Freebase: Google Knowledge Graph reference.

Request Summary

I am not seeking to fully undelete these articles into mainspace or to reopen deletion discussions. Instead, I humbly request temporary restoration to user space or provision of the deleted article content from the following pages, in order to review and merge well-sourced material into the existing, currently active article: Bahahuddin Nadwi.

Articles previously deleted:

1. Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi – deleted without a community discussion
2. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi – deleted via AfD
3. Bahauddeen Nadwi – deleted following first and second AfD nominations

I believe much of the previously submitted content was fact-rich, neutral, citation-supported, and improperly discarded without sufficient attention to reliable sources or notability, particularly considering the subject's enduring academic, social, and cultural influence.

I kindly ask for these materials to be temporarily restored or made available for editorial review, with the aim of respectfully merging factual, encyclopedic content into the current live article.

Wikidata Merge Request

There is currently a duplication on Wikidata referring to this same individual:

• Q3595829 – Bahauddeen Kooriyad
• Q119459540 – Bahahuddin Nadwi

Proposed action: Merge the two items, as they clearly represent the same person. Suggested primary label after merge: Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (Aliases can include "Bahauddeen Nadwi", "Bahahuddin Nadwi", and other transliterations for accessibility.)

I understand that this portion may fall under the purview of Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, but I am including it here for completeness and continuity.

Closing Note

This request is submitted in the spirit of upholding Wikipedia's mission to document and share knowledge about globally impactful individuals. Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi’s scholarly leadership and transformative contributions to Islamic education are well-documented, deeply notable, and deserving of accurate, well-maintained representation on Wikipedia.

I appreciate your time and consideration, and I am happy to assist further in the editorial or sourcing process to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policies.

With gratitude, Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated requests will not be considered. Also, this really seems like a matter for the deleting administrator. Lynch44 01:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

I’m requesting the content restoration of all deleted articles, without further investigation. One of the articles was deleted without any discussion, and others were deleted multiple times without proper community review. This is not a request to restore them to mainspace — only to access the deleted content for review.

The goal is to identify and merge any well-sourced, encyclopedic material into the current article. The subject is clearly notable, and valuable content may have been removed without full consideration. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That is not true. There were multiple AfDs, which by definition are community reviews. One version was recreated despite those AfDs. If you want to request deletion review, please go to WP:DRV, not AN. But since there is already a live article (again), I see little point in reinstating deleted content to anywhere to see if it's got anything that isn't already in the mainspace article, since they were deleted on grounds of lack of indicated or substantiated notability and borderline promotional content, so the content wasn't satisfactory at those times. One version was in fact userfied, and still exists in user space. Look at the deletion log. Wikidata is its own project, you will need to address any duplications there. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hidaya Chemmad, I have seen some editors have success asking the deleting administrator to email them a copy of the deleted article. I would suggest being flexible here and approaching the administrators who deleted these articles and see what they would be open to rather than insisting on the restoration in your User space. After all, the goal here is for you to see the deleted content, right? So, work with these admins and see what they would be willing to do to help you out rather than having a formal noticeboard discussion which, truthfully, could head off on a lot of different tangents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Why do admins continue to marginalize the documented legacy of a globally respected Muslim scholar and the renowned university he built from the ground up — an institution that has redefined Islamic scholarship for an entire generation? The repeated deletion of well-sourced content, without balanced review or due diligence, reflects not just editorial oversight, but a disturbing pattern of systemic bias and intellectual gatekeeping. Wikipedia claims neutrality — but these actions betray that principle. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I have done the wikidata merge, which is not an administrative matter, either here or on wikidata (which is a different project over which this noticeboard has no control). DrKay (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the CSD tag from the article as neither G4 nor G5 apply to the article as it stands now. It is substantially different (and expanded) from the version deleted at AfD, and a significant number of editors have substantially edited it since it was created by a sock of a banned editor. Technically, G5 wouldn't apply anyway as the banned editor wasn't banned until four days after the article was created. AfD will have to be the method to delete it now. Black Kite (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for removing the CSD tag from the article — you're a fair-minded admin.

  But I have to ask: why are administrators relentlessly targeting every edit connected to this university and its founder? This no longer feels like standard editorial oversight — it increasingly resembles a coordinated pattern of erasure aimed at notable Islamic scholars and the institutions they’ve built. A similar case was the deletion of the Al Jamia Al Islamiya article, which many editors also viewed as unjust and lacking a fair evaluation of its notability and sources. The repeated removal of well-sourced, encyclopedic content raises serious concerns about systemic bias, double standards, and editorial gatekeeping within parts of the admin community. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  So ... you thank me for removing the CSD tag, and then post this on my talk page? What very bizarre behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• FYI - I've marked most of the references in Bahahuddin Nadwi as {{failed verification}}. The references used are about him, but have nothing to do with the content they are attached too. There's enough reporting on him to probably show he's notable, but the current article is in a poor state. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Article title discussion: Bahauddeen Nadwi I’d like to open a discussion regarding the best title for this article. The name appears in multiple forms:

1. Bahauddeen Nadwi – the previous article title
2. Bahahuddin Nadwi – the current title, but I believe this was a mistake

Based on common usage and reliable sources, I think we should consider moving it back to Bahauddeen Nadwi. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Submit a request at WP:RM. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how request. Can you help me? Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSPM. Logoshimpo (talk) 12:04, 31 August 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:Lorraine Crane

• Lorraine Crane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lorraine Crane, formerly known as Villkomoses (User talk:Lorraine Crane/Archive 1), has been a new page reviewer for three weeks. I first encountered the user at the Roly Porter article, and I am afraid to say that some of the user's recent reviews are inappropriate (Wikipedia:Tag bombing). Examples:

• They tagged {{Excessive citations}} to the Roly Porter article, below infobox (diff). I think two citations for one sentence is acceptable because, to quote Wikipedia:Citation overkill, "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources".
• They tagged {{Independent sources}} and {{Orphan}} to the Miramar Christian School article (diff). It is already linked from one article: List of schools in the Wellington Region.
• They tagged {{Orphan}} and {{No significant coverage (sports)}} to the Ricardo Valdéz article, below infobox (diff). It is already linked from two articles: Dorados de Chihuahua (basketball) and Plateros de Fresnillo.
• They tagged {{Orphan}} to the LightShip (spacecraft) article, below infobox (diff). It is already linked (via redirect) from two articles: Solar electric propulsion and List of European Space Agency programmes and missions.
• They tagged {{No significant coverage}} to the Pass the Plate (album) article, below infobox (diff). I think the AllMusic review is a significant coverage.

I am requesting the removal of Lorraine Crane's NPR rights. Although the user's NPR rights will expire on 28 August 2025, it would be helpful if someone else could take a look at their contributions. フランベ (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@フランベ, why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Lorraine Crane first? Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Because I would like an administrator to determine if Lorraine Crane deserves NPR rights. I've just left a notice on User talk:Lorraine Crane, so I think we can discuss the issue here now. フランベ (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

maybe they would have done self-reflection and apologize. administrator intervention would never be required in the first place. i agree that it's a bit premature. 85.98.23.90 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: granted the temporary right and may be interested in this discussion. We need new page reviewers, and educating those who are just starting and may make mistakes is a whole lot more helpful to the project than running to a noticeboard to publicly call them out without even telling them about any errors or giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Schazjmd, and would further note that tag use frequency is perhaps the easiest bad-NPR-behavior to correct for, as it typically just means recalibrating how quickly one moves to tag, rather than having to learn a complicated concept like notability, OR, or copyright law. That said, the concerns raised are valid; I would like to see a response from Lorraine Crane before determining whether any actions are necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review my contributions. As you mentioned, this is my trial month at NPR, and I’m still learning. I apologize for the mistakes and will make sure to review the relevant regulatory guidelines before applying these tags again.

I’d also like to clarify that there was no ill intent behind my actions, and I’ll be more careful when determining orphan status going forward. Previously, I relied on tools to suggest tags, but I now realize they often create more issues than they solve, so I’ll use it wisely and when needed to address the problem and give the chance to the author to work on the article more.

Instead of focusing on tagging, I’ll pay closer attention on taking appropriate action myself, such as draftifying or initiating AfD discussions when necessary. If there’s anything else you’d like to point out, I’d truly appreciate the feedback.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lorraine Crane: Thank you for your explanation. Apology accepted. However, I'm not talking about just {{Orphan}} tag, but also other tags like {{Excessive citations}} and {{No significant coverage}} (there may be some more inappropriate tags I haven't found yet). If you understand that you made mistakes, then I think you should clean up your own mess. フランベ (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I meant rereading the guidelines on applying different tags, including all of those mentioned, not just orphans. I will make sure to double check my previous contributions to clean up where there might've been mistakes committed. Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lorraine Crane: I have tried my best to be patient, but, looking at Special:Contributions/Lorraine Crane, I have to say this: You seem to continue to prioritize other tasks. It is quite disappointing to see that, in the last several days, there has been no retraction or even justification for your tag-bombing I pointed out above. フランベ (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I will actually take time to handle all the tags you mentioned that I have applied inappropriately. It is just that I have been learning more deeper into the nuances of each these taggings these past few days and hence my inaction, the other usual tasks I am doing is part of the additional learning. Will advise you of a timeframe soon as I am confident enough to handle each of the specific ones you pointed out, Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! To update, I will begin the cleanups starting this week onwards, applying what I have learned so far, at least the major ones should be done within the week and if there would be any I missed, do not hesitate to let me know. Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User: Swatjester

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 tried adding a mention of Johann Fischer’s 1825 Austrian patent for a revolver to the main revolver page but the user Swatjester refuses to countenance the idea that it was in fact a revolver patent despite me providing tonnes of evidence indicating it was, which you can find on both the revolver talk page and swatjester’s talk page. I have tried reasoning with him but he is often condescending at best and outright vindictive at worst with his dealings with me and judging from his history this is a common theme with him. For instance, rather than wait for third party arbitration, which I have called for twice, the first time stating that I would respect their decision either way and being ignored both times, he has shut down the debate and refused to allow anyone to comment further on the topic. This seems like an abuse of his admin privileges to me and frankly his open hostility combined with the former makes me wary of confronting him further on my own so I have come here for help. SQMeaner (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@SQMeaner: my reading of it (from Swatjester's talk page and Talk:Revolver) is that you're trying to impose your OR/synth-based view, while Swatjester (whom you don't appear to have informed of this discussion, BTW) is quite reasonably trying to explain to you some of our policies, which you're refusing to take onboard. And when you didn't get your way, you decided to come here and start attacking Swatjester ad hominem. Not a good look, IMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for not informing Swatjester, that was a mistake but I assure you not a deliberate one. Personally, I thought it was quite clear based on the evidence I provided that Fischer patented a revolver in 1825 but if you think otherwise I won’t dispute this. Frankly I’m just glad a third party finally intervened in some form. That being said, I still feel Swatjester was out of line and repeatedly took a threatening and condescending tone when it was completely uncalled for in addition to ignoring my requests for third party arbitration. You say I am attacking him ad hominem style but if you go through his history you can see that I’m not the only one who has had issues with him in the past in this respect. SQMeaner (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Just because multiple users have "issues" with someone means very little: here you're having "issues" with Swatjester, and my very point is that your issues are without merit. Admins in particular tend to get more than their fair share of insults, accusations, personal attacks, and other garbage hurled at them; that sort of goes with the territory, and doesn't in and of itself tell us anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

PS: Oh, and can you please point to where Swatjester was acting in administrative capacity, let alone abusing their position, because I must have missed that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

By shutting down my post on his talk page, is that not using his administrative privileges to scare away any and all further debate on the topic? SQMeaner (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, because a non-admin could have done the same thing. Everyone is entitled to remove content from their talk page. There was no invocation of administrative authority here; this is just a content dispute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

So it would have been OK for me to continue the debate on the revolver talk page? If that’s the case then I probably wouldn’t have made this topic to begin with but I thought at the time Swatjester was declaring an end to any and all discussion on the Fischer revolver across all of Wikipedia period. SQMeaner (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that do not reply further here, this conversation is concluded refers to Swatjester's talk page, where it was posted, rather than to the almost one-year-old discussion on Talk:Revolver#Fischer_revolver. Meters (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it didn’t seem that way to me. What can I say, I clearly misunderstood his intentions if that is indeed what he meant. SQMeaner (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I've tried like 17 times to reply and keep getting edit conflicted, but y'all are saying, more concisely, essentially what I was going to say. However, I'm not going to let the insistence that I'm somehow "ignoring requests for a third party arbitration" slide -- that's just a nakedly false statement. I said, word for word, You can involve whatever third party you'd like, but they can't simply ignore our policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. That's neither ignoring, nor refusing to wait for something to which I never agreed to participate, in the first place. (FWIW, my assumption was that they meant WP:3O). Which apparently they did but with no notification either to me or to the article, so how would I even have known? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have quoted my first attempt to involve a third party below, which you completely ignored at the time.

’ Again, I think this conversation would really benefit from inviting someone with more knowledge of the French and German languages to weigh in on it. If we can find someone with a working knowledge of French and/or German who agrees that my sources are too ambiguous to be used then I will withdraw my edits without further debate but I would appreciate it if we could wait for that to happen before either of us takes further action on the main page.’

the second time I am referring to is when I started a new topic on your talk page and again requested a third party to intervene which you responded to by declaring an end to the conversation. At the time I thought this meant an end to any and all discussion of the Fischer revolver on all of Wikipedia but if you just meant on your talk page then I apologise for the misunderstanding. SQMeaner (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring for a second that is referring to a different edit, with a different set of sources being used, and a different underlying issue (SYNTH in the translation), it is not at all the case that you get to force in your preferred version of edits, and then say "Hey, let's agree to just let me have it my way until some unspecified time in the future when we find some other person who may or may not agree with me." No, why would anyone agree to that, particularly when the sourcing was defective in the first place? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean with all your ‘different’ talk but I suppose you’re right that by the strict letter of Wikipedia’s law my initial edits were out of line and it would only have been right and proper to leave the main article in its original state before my edits. Am I still clear to post on revolver’s talk page? SQMeaner (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't think you should try to beat the dead horse with this issue without significantly improving both the sources you're bringing to the table and your understanding of our policies, but if someone else wants to tell you to go ahead that's on them. To be very explicit, I'm not saying you cannot do it, I'm just not going to be the one who tells you to do so because I think it's a bad idea. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm willing to chalk this up to SQMeaner making a series of misunderstandings in good faith -- though tbh that last part is starting to wear a bit thin for me. It's 3AM for me on a holiday weekend -- I'm going to bed. I think we can likely all move on, but if not and I'm somehow an ultra-bad admin and need to be taken out back and dealt with harshly, may my last words be "Unranked FSU beat Bama 31 - 17, go 'Noles!"⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester I followed the breadcrumbs from the 3O ticket filed by @SQMeaner, which is still open, to here. Would you consider copying the more recent archived discussion archived on your user page into the much older but relevant discussion article's talk page so that everything is all in one place? Xan747 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 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.

PBLOCK me for testing

Hi, could someone PBLOCK me from editing User:Nyttend/testrjehtunrinetdngrm for a week, and then be ready to delete it at my request? I'm trying to figure out some technical aspects, and the last time I blocked myself to run some testing, I accidentally autoblocked myself and had to wait a long time to return to normal. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Done Mfield (Oi!) 20:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Mfield, for the help. Could you (or anyone else) delete the page? Please don't change the block or make any other changes. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Extraordinary Writ. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

PS, could someone completely block me for 24 hours? (Disable autoblock and enable talk access, please, and use a summary to clarify that it's strictly a technical test that anyone may undo.) I just discovered that I can unblock myself from partial blocks, at least when the partial block doesn't have any effects anymore. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't be able get out of this by yourself, specifically because you are disabled from making any logged action when you are fully blocked. (Well, except blocking Extraordinary Writ) Sohom (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Use of unreviewed LLM content by User:Wikiwizardinho

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 a random look at the New Page feed, I came across articles created by the user. When I read the paragraphs with keen eyes, the lines that caught my attention were: On this page — Molela terracotta

1] Characterized by vividly painted, wall-mounted plaques, the tradition is practiced predominantly by the Kumhar community of potters and holds both artistic and ritual significance.

2] This miraculous event established the religious foundation of the Molela craft and the devotion to creating deity plaques.

3] Designers and craft researchers have begun adapting Molela motifs for use in contemporary textiles, interior décor, and fashion, helping sustain the craft in modern markets. All the lines I showed have a subjective behavior and emotiveness, which is mostly the nature of AI chatbots.

The next page to move on to is — Jhalana Amagarh leopard conservation reserve

1] The two forests are separated by a national highway, posing challenges for wildlife movement and necessitating the development of ecological corridors.

2] The reserve offers guided jeep safaris, providing visitors with opportunities to observe leopards and other wildlife in their natural habitat.

3] The proximity of the reserve to Jaipur makes it a popular destination for both domestic and international tourists. See in this — Raiyoli Fossil Park

1] Researchers working in Raiyoli have determined that Gujarat contains one of the largest known clutches of dinosaur hatcheries in the world. At least thirteen dinosaur species nested there for more than 100 million years until their extinction around 65 million years ago.

2] Excavations at Raiyoli continue under supervision, and local outreach efforts emphasize both heritage preservation and community involvement.

3] Following the excavations, tourism officials of Gujarat branded the area "Dinosaur Tourism." Aaliya Sultana Babi—popularly known as the "Dinosaur Princess"—conducts guided tours of the Raiyoli Dinosaur Fossil Park, blending paleontological interpretation with local folklore. The tours have further increased visitor interest, drawing scientists, students, and tourists from across India and abroad.

The fact is that AI chatbots have a habit of using unnecessary dashes in paragraphs, which is also mentioned in WP:AILIST. It clearly fits the case here.

Moving further to some more articles where a heavy amount of LLM content was used without reviewing, please take a look below: On here — Dholpur—Karauli Tiger Reserve

1] Geography The reserve covers a landscape characterized by dry deciduous forests, scrublands, and riverine ecosystems. It lies within the semi-arid region of Rajasthan and supports diverse flora and fauna. The topography is marked by low hills, seasonal rivers, and grasslands, providing a conducive environment for large carnivores such as the tiger. The whole of this paragraph appears to be LLM-generated and violates WP:OR and WP:V.

2] It plays a crucial role in maintaining genetic diversity and mitigating human–wildlife conflicts.

I would like to request Admins to kindly check User:Wikiwizardinho editing history and take appropriate actions regarding LLM content. Thanks! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 10:36, 31 August 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.

Naugachhia

the page Naugachhia is still being warred over, mainly seems to be some kind of regionalist dispute between a few editors. It is still continuing and all parties involved have ignored the RfC, while accusing one another of Vandalism. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Mismatching color schemes on 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary article

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 current state of the maps on the 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary article is abysmal. The current maps in the infobox have the color scheme of Yellow Zohran, Blue Cuomo, while maps lower on the page have the color scheme Blue Zohran, Yellow Cuomo. This all stemmed from me adding maps for the first, second, and final rounds by borough, assembly district, and precinct, upon which I changed the color scheme from Yellow Zohran, Blue Cuomo to Blue Zohran, Yellow Cuomo. This is because it is standard of U.S. downballot Democratic primaries for the winner to be colored blue, as seen in all prior NYC mayoral Democratic primaries, all U.S. senate democratic primaries, all U.S. House democratic primaries, etc. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to this rule. The reason that the maps initially on the page were colored blue for Cuomo was because he was assumed the winner (the maps date back to June 7th, the primary was June 25th) and that was never rectified post-primary until I made the change. Despite the clear precedent in favor of this, one editor pushed back, claiming that Yellow Cuomo and Blue Zohran was more appropriate due to campaign colors, with Zohran using yellow more and Cuomo using blue more. I and other editors pointed out the flawed logic in this (for one, campaign colors are never used in determining color scheme and two, Zohran also uses blue in his campaign logo, and his logo is really blue/orange not blue/yellow). There was also pushback against my statement that it was precedent for blue to be the Democratic primary winner by using old presidential Democratic primaries to suggest that it wasn't precedent, even though presidential elections are notoriously different than downballot elections, with the two even having different general election palettes. In the midst of this, an editor took my maps and derived blue Cuomo, yellow Zohran maps and replaced them in the infobox (they didn't make their own from scratch, they directly copied it from mine, as viewable in the file description), claiming that this was the status quo due to the color scheme predating my maps. After a while, a variety of editors eventually placed my blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo maps lower on the page, while the derived maps were placed in the infobox. This led to some concerns by other editors (including myself) over the completely mismatching color schemes on the page, but it was assumed that this would be resolved after the RfC closed so that one color scheme would prevail and there would be no confusion. Unfortunately, the RfC was just closed, though, with a no consensus result, although the individual who closed the discussion gave an official tally of 5-4 in favor of yellow Cuomo (I counted 5-3 but he included an individual who said that they didn't feel as strongly about the result) and has conceded that my arguments are stronger:

As you said, I don't believe that campaign colors represents any precedent to my knowledge, nor did I think any editor make such a claim. Upon reflection on the arguments made, I can see how the precedent argument is somewhat stronger that the campaign colors argument, but I'm still not convinced that it is strong enough to result in consensus with the result of the votes.

I have talked to an admin about rectifying the color schemes on the article but they have said that I should not edit the page, and there seems to be no push whatsoever to rectify this massive discrepancy. As a result, I am asking for a modification to the results of the RfC to give consensus in favor of blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo and/or direct permission to change the color schemes in the infobox back to what it originally was before the derivations of my maps were made. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The map colours have now been made consistent throughout the article in line with the result determined by the RfC. RachelTensions (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You are literally going against the current no consensus. This is not resolved and you are pushing though a decision that the RfC decision explicitly said not to go with your status quo of yellow here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orca#Justification_of_closing_Talk:2025_New_York_City_Democratic_mayoral_primary#RfC_on_colour_used_for_candidates Orca🐋 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The rules of RfC dictate that the status quo stands. In that case, you are going against what the established status quo during the RfC was. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Orca: I was the user who made that edit (and the derivative maps, for what it's worth). If I've violated the RfC then mea culpa, but I don't think it makes sense to have two conflicting maps and colour schemes on the same article, hence why I created and added new yellow Mamdani/blue Cuomo maps. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that maps should not conflict, but the author explicitly said this:

I am not going to prescribe what colors should be used uniformly for the article, that would not reflect the no consensus that I found in the RFC, although I do understand and empathize with how frustrating this situation is. It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to. Reverting the colors in the infobox to the diff you shared might be considered disruptive to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the article, but changing the labels and Zohran's photo would be allowed. I recommend giving time for consensus to change/form before restarting the discussion on the colors. I purposefully avoided making this determination of colors in my closure because I felt that returning the article to the status quo from a no consensus would be too favorable to those supporting yellow for Mamdani who used the status quo in their own arguments. You are right that there is a numerical majority in favor of yellow for Cuomo, but as I explained in my closure, I felt that this was too close to establish a consensus, especially with a single vote swap that could have altered the majority or induce a tie, and that reason is what justifies my no consensus closure the most.

If you change the maps to blue Zohran yellow Cuomo, I will not revert your edits since that is what consensus leans towards. But you directly changed it to a version the closer specifically advised against. @LivelyRatification: @RachelTensions: Orca🐋 (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The status quo for colors is yellow for Mamdani and blue for Cuomo. That's the color key that the article has used for each candidate going all the way back to its creation, long before any further maps were added to the article that used a contrary key. Since the RfC determined to keep the status quo for colors for each candidate, then this is what we're to use.

Regardless, this is a content dispute, not an administrative issue. This is likely the wrong venue for this discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I was told by the closer to go via this avenue. And the closer explicitly said that this was not his intent for all the maps to be yellow Zohran and that the arguments and support for blue Zohran are slightly stronger. pinging @Gramix13: on this Orca🐋 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@RachelTensions: Orca🐋 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And you do realise what you are saying right now is exactly what the closer is saying he did not say "no consensus" for right? Did you not read the bolded text in the quote of theirs above? Orca🐋 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

In the event that an RfC is closed as no-consensus, then the status quo stands. The proposed change to the status quo has failed. The closer can tiptoe around it, as they did here, but that's really how it works.

There is no other action to take other than maybe coming up with a different option that wasn't presented at the RfC. RachelTensions (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The status quo during the RfC had both conflicting maps on the page. You are making up your own status quo, a decision which has not been determined, and which the author explicitly says was not their decision. You are not the closer, you don't get to decide what the status quo is. In case you missed it, this was their solution:

It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to.

You may not like it, and neither do I, but that's what it is. This is still not resolved to a single color. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Would like to clarify that I didn't read Orca's userpage in detail before making my edits, my only real aim was consistency, not enforcing a specific colour palette, which seems honestly quite trivial. I apologise if my edits were in violation of the intended outcome of the RfC, but my assumption was that, given that the RfC had closed, a consistent standard on the page should be enforced. I didn't make it blue Zohran and yellow Cuomo because there was explicitly no consensus for that colour scheme. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy. This is a content dispute, but I see that the overall editor behavior hasn't changed much since I pageblocked Orca and DimensionalFusion for arguing/reverting about colors back in July. It was in WP:LAME territory then. If the RfC is inconclusive, then abide by the status quo. I fail to see how the colors matter as long as they're distinguishable for people with vision issues. This isn't a campaign website, and we're not obligated to follow a candidate's preferred branding. If another edit war erupts over this, there will be further sanctions. Stop using AN to argue. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I was explicitely told by the closer to go though this avenue to get this fixed. I also quote this above from the closer but this was what they deemed to be the status quo:

I am not going to prescribe what colors should be used uniformly for the article, that would not reflect the no consensus that I found in the RFC, although I do understand and empathize with how frustrating this situation is. It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to. Reverting the colors in the infobox to the diff you shared might be considered disruptive to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the article, but changing the labels and Zohran's photo would be allowed. I recommend giving time for consensus to change/form before restarting the discussion on the colors. I purposefully avoided making this determination of colors in my closure because I felt that returning the article to the status quo from a no consensus would be too favorable to those supporting yellow for Mamdani who used the status quo in their own arguments. You are right that there is a numerical majority in favor of yellow for Cuomo, but as I explained in my closure, I felt that this was too close to establish a consensus, especially with a single vote swap that could have altered the majority or induce a tie, and that reason is what justifies my no consensus closure the most.

Note that this "as is" was when the color schemes were mismatching. So I only opened this to resolve it to a single color, which the closer recommended me to do. I am trying to do this by the right pathway and I feel like you keep assuming this as bad faith @Acroterion: Orca🐋 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

AN isn't a forum for arbitrating a failed or inconclusive RfC. Maybe DRN, but not here. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Link me that and I will file it under there then. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If, as you've stated, you want things resolved to use a single single consistent color scheme throughout the article, then the status quo color scheme going all the way back to the creation of the article is what should be used.

Given your comments earlier today here seem to indicate you're not willing to compromise on anything short of getting your way, I'm not sure there is much more we can do here: "I will not settle on this, the maps in the infobox must be blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo, or I am not going to upload any more maps to Wikipedia. So you need to let me know what pathway I can get that done by. This is not something I am willing to compromise on whatsoever." RachelTensions (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

No this is because the arguments for yellow Zohran are completely ridiculous, this doesn't mean I'm not going throught he proper pathways. You can clearly see in that thread I am asking how to resolve it instead of directly editing on the page with my preferred edits. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Orca, stop that kind of argument now. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As the closer, yes, this is absolutely in LAME territory. I'm now realizing that failing to specify that the status quo holds, and leaving that be implicit to editors, was not helpful for the article, even though my intent was to avoid making the close seem favored to those supporting the status quo and making it more likely to be challenged as non-neutral. I will amend my close to make this status quo explicit to avoid further confusion over the result of the RFC. I take full responsibility for having this be brought to AN, I had suggested this to Orca in good faith believing that giving them the proper avenue to challenge a closure would avoid enflaming the dispute and prevent them from disruptively enforcing their preferred colors or starting another RFC prematurely, but their responses and bludgeoning here has proved me wrong. I'll consider pointing an involved editor to DRN the next time I get involved in a dispute of a closure like this one where it ends in no consensus. Gramix13 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Since you've only been around since April, I appreciate your willingness to dive in the deep end, but closing contentious RfCs isn't always a rewarding experience. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gramix13: so what are you suggesting that status quo to be? I feel like given the arguments for blue Zohran are stronger as you admit, majority support blue Zohran (even if slightly), and the version in which all current maps on the page were first around was with blue Zohran yellow Cuomo (all newer map versions for the final and second round, plus the first round AD map were derivations of my maps), it is only fair for the color scheme to be blue Zohran, even if as a temporary status quo until this is resolved. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm closing this, it's not an appropriate use of AN. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 2 September 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:Kailas Gite

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.

---

Perhaps an admin could take a look at User:Kailas Gite? It appears to have been created by mistake by someone attempting to create an article about a person named Kailas Gite. I've moved the page to Draft:Kailas Gite but am not sure what to do about the user page since I don't believe an user account by that name exists.

FWIW, I only stumbled upon this why checking on a file the draft's creator also uploaded. From the page history of the draft, though, the creator seems a bit lost. It looks like this actually did start out in the draft mainspace, was moved to the mainspace by its creator, was subsequently tagged with {{Notability}} by another user, was then moved back to the draft namespace by its creator for some reason (perhaps they thought doing so would get rid of the notability tag), and then finally moved to "User:Kailas Gite" by its creator (most likely in an attempt to get it back to the mainspace). The edit summaries that the creator left indicate they feel the subject is Wikipedia notable and that an article about them can be created. I'm not too sure about this which is why I draftified the page again and added {{AfC draft}} to the top. If someone feels the subject is Wikipedia notable, they can move the page back to the mainspace if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 2 September 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.

False banned?

I got false banned, I don't know the reason anymore and I have to wait until next year at the first of january to edit again. I don't know what to do and to say my account but I got banned like I think a year or couple months after I edited a page. Please reply if you know what I can do. 178.197.218.203 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait I got blocked but I don't really understand what it means by blocked. Does it mean I can't login and make edits cause I found out after trying to add an image of a plane into a plane crash article that was deleted due to copyright a few months back. 178.197.218.203 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What is your account name? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

See the partial block of this anonymous user's /18 range from User and User_talk space. The block expires on 1 January 2026. The block reason was originally specified as 'harassment' by User:ToBeFree back in 2021. It would be less confusing if the user would register an account. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's why the block exists. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw the rangeblock. I was asking because the IP editor said: I don't know what to do and to say my account but I got banned like I think a year or couple months after I edited a page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: They can't register an account - account creation is blocked from that rangeblock - added by @Drmies: in April 2024. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The block prevents only edits to user pages and user talk pages. You can edit articles without an account, or create an account from a different network and then use that to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke and Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke en - file under WP:Yet more mistakes made Admin Shirt58?

Hi all,

There's some kind of fuddle-up going on with those various article titles, which I'm trying to fix.

As someone who is who is very much aware of their limitations when it comes to tEcHiCal sTufF lIkE tHiS, I'd appreciate your assistance here.

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I tried to fix this and clearly failed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

We need a page mover or admin to move Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke en to Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke, since regular users cannot overwrite redirects as I had originally assumed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Shirt58 First the redirects Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke, Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke (en) and Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke (English translation) need to be deleted. The page located at Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke en then needs to be moved (without leaving a redirect) to Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Moderate AE backlog

WP:AE is getting a bit backlogged. If anyone has time, we currently have:

• IdanST (PIA, appeal): 29 days old; 2 admin !votes; I've proposed closure
• Icecold (GENSEX): 50 days old; 5 admin !votes; I've proposed closure
• Lt.gen.zephyr (SA): 10 days old; 0 admin participation
• Viceskeeni2 (AA, appeal): 9 days old; 0 admin !votes
• Regioncalifornia (PIA): 5 days old; 1 admin !vote
• Gotitbro (SA): 3 days old; 0 admin participation
• Rambling Rambler (GENSEX): 1 day old; 1 admin !vote

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification: AfD and merge proposal involving Darul Huda Islamic University

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 to notify administrators of two parallel discussions concerning related topics:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahahuddin Nadwi – ongoing AfD regarding the notability of the founding Vice Chancellor of Darul Huda Islamic University.

Why should be deleted and salted: multiple prior deletions under variant spellings, concerns about block evasion, and lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources (per WP:GNG and WP:NPROF).

• Talk:Chemmad#Merge proposal – merge proposal suggesting that Darul Huda Islamic University be merged into Chemmad.

Why should be merged: the institute appears to lack sufficient independent notability to stand alone, and per WP:MERGE and WP:PRESERVE, its information could be better maintained in the Chemmad article, similar to other local institutions (e.g. Al Jamia Al Islamiya).

Because these discussions overlap in scope (the institute and its leadership), I am posting here so administrators are aware and can monitor for consistency and policy alignment. Please comment in the linked discussions rather than here.

— Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 13:06, 4 September 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.

AI Moderator proposal

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § AI Moderator proposal

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 12:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to appeal my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban in its entirety

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 appeal my topic ban in its entirety. There are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons". I know I made mistakes in the past, but I have had few to no incidents for over one year. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Previous appeal in February. —Cryptic 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Define "few to none" with diffs, please. Seeing these examples might help determine how the IDHT and CIR concerns that were raised when you were topic banned in the first place. It's fine to appeal after a year, but I think most are going to want to see more information about how you've handle disagreements over the past year. And yes, you should have included the previous appeal in your request from 6 months ago for full disclosure. I'm not inclined to support at this time, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have asked for guidance here about what I should and should not post. I have participated in an appropriate manner at this Redirect for discussion. I apologize for not including my February 2025 appeal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• This is not a convincing appeal so far, but copyright is IMO serious enough that I wouldn't mind carving out an exception for histmerge templates. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  More or less where I stand too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I imposed the topic ban but am fully neutral on this request as I haven't been able to assist Jax on their Talk due to limited on wiki time. The question I ask though is the same one I did last time - Jax should make a case why they need to be the one applying these tags vs. either letting someone else do it, or complete the action rather than just tagging. I am not opposed to the carveout C727 suggests avove. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I am guessing that people might not know about some articles that need to be history merged unless I notify someone about the specific pages, as noted below. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think there's a reasonably clear difference between using templates like {{history merge}}, {{edit template-protected}}, or {{db-move}} that require permissions that Jax 0677 doesn't have, and the templates people were complaining about in the original discussion; so like Star Mississippi, I'm not opposed to a carveout for them. But I'm very wary of rescinding the ban completely - people had, for example, been complaining about the part that personally irritates me the most - the opaque, idiosyncratic template redirects - for more than a decade (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Template:Wpcy and the following seven nominations; also several more nonconsecutive ones on that same daily subpage) without a hint of behavioral change right up until the ban was imposed. —Cryptic 03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would be agreeable to a "carveout" for templates that require permissions that I do not have. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, there are multiple albums by Seventh Day Slumber that are unnecessarily disambiguated, which I cannot fix due to this topic ban. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Making requests at WP:RMTR would not be a violation of the topic ban as I read it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I simply wish I had better definition of which templates I am and am not allowed to use. On my talk page, StarMississsippi said "I'd stay away from the latter two as you're telling others to do a certain thing". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see opening a discussion different to dropping a tag on an article even if tagging it is part of opening an RM. Like @Pppery, I don't think this would be a violation. It's certainly not one I'd block you for. Re: which templates you're able to use and not, what you still haven't answered unless I missed it is why you need to patrol this. Opening a discussion for a Requested Move is probably fine. But is there a reason you can't move the articles? Or leave the articles for someone else? That's still the open question Star Mississippi 00:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  The 7DS album articles have been at incorrect titles for months, and AFAIK, I cannot even ask others to move articles. I cannot move Fractured Paradise (album) to Fractured Paradise. "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists". The same is true for Closer to Chaos (album). I am sure that there will be cut and paste moves that require history merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  I mean it was you who created Fractured Paradise and Closer to Chaos (without the dabs) so you could have requested G7, which would be allowed as you cannot delete an article. That said, I've deleted the redirects and moved the articles because process for the sake of process is annoying-but also does it matter that they're at incorrect titles? Does it impact the project at all? Star Mississippi 00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CONCISE does want shorter titles, but I guess they can be long. I would prefer to use WP:RM instead of {{dbg7}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would strongly advise that if you do go that route you avoid flooding RM with unnecessary requests. We do not have the bandwidth in general right now. Not to say you can't, but be mindful. Star Mississippi 02:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Which articles, specifically, would you like to tag? Can you list three or four please.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  • User:Jax 0677/Histmerge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

    Thoughts on that list as a regular histmerging admin:

    Rajput (surname) and Rajput (disambiguation) have WP:Parallel histories that make history merging not practical in my opinion

    Sravanthi (given name)/Sravanthi is technically histmergable but seems like a rather low-priority history merge since the content being merged isn't copyrightable in the first place (nobody's attribution is lost) and it would require a delete/undelete and the attendant mess that entails to do right. I most likely couldn't be bothered to do this, but if another admin wants to do this I wouldn't complain.

    This doesn't mean that I oppose this proposal; histmerging is notoriously arcane with few of its conventions documented and they often differ from admin to admin, so I can't really expect Jax 0677 to know them all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

    I just saw it listed here so I think I should point out that the Rajput articles have been the target of extensive ideological sockpuppetry and likely have hijackings in their history. That page may be a case where a histmerge would be more harmful than helpful. I haven't actually reviewed just now to get up to speed but please proceed with caution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

    Would you say these are candidates for the "list of contributors" approach? So we can get into strict compliance with the terms of use without doing heavy duty reconstruction of unhelpful edits in the page history, I mean.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

    It seems these aren't the target articles I'm thinking of. Probably I'm thinking of other articles that the socks have tried to hijack to insert their Rajput POV forks into those pages; hard to find but not relevant here anyway. For the (surname) and (disambiguation) pages that have parallel histories, I don't think anything should be done really. It's basically the same small group of contributors, and very little of the content (maybe none) is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright treatment anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any narrowing or overturning of the topic ban; the proposed examples of histmerge tagging fail to make their case so I'm not convinced them histmerge tagging would be useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, but I really think it's a case of the topic ban working, not something that is no longer necessary. I'd rather let some of these relatively trivial things go addressed than Jax bog down the community with endless discussions from their confusing or poorly thought out template usage. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 26 August 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.

Third admin opinion requested at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

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, we appear to have ended up with a bit of an impasse at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer#User:Cactusisme, with myself hedging against conferring permissions and Sohom Datta hedging towards conferring. Given that discussion has stalled, I, and I suspect also Sohom, don't want to unilaterally overrule the other, so I'd ask that an additional admin step in and decide whether to confer or decline at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume this is now moot given [1]. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed (and for anyone confused, as I was, User:Plutus is Cactusisme renamed). Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 6 September 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.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

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

Administrator changes

Euryalus

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

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Consistent page creation spam: Jack Massey Welsh

Roughly 5 years ago, a Youtuber, by the online alias of Jacksucksatlife, otherwise known as Jack Massey Welsh, came onto Wikipedia on a video and edited the Bishop Auckland article, to include a reference to himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZmf4qywZA&t=147s). While there was already some vandalism to the page at this point, thanks to his audience, his inability to see consequence here, led to continued vandalism, even this day.

Whilst his behaviour on the topic majorly calmed down, his audience's didn't, leading to a nonstop attempt to get an article created. We had previously already deleted a page for this Youtuber in 2018, so too in 2020, after his video.

His audience claims him to be notable, noting that he has a world record, and has over 4.5M subscribers, which us on Wikipedia have disagreed with in several A/MfD discussions, as our policies (WP:GNG) mean he is not notable, as he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. I've personally reached out to some of his viewers, off wiki, to explain our policies and our stance, which met mixed reception. However, due to the incidents over the years, several variations of his handle/name have recieved salting, and several more drafts are currently in creation, including several I put foward for MfD several days ago.

There are more draft articles, outside of this MfD, which, I would argue has already met consensus for deletion, thanks to the consistency of our voice against this behaviour to try and brute force and article onto Wikipedia, seemingly for clicks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=Draft%3AJack+Massey+Welsh&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

Unsure of what action could be taken here, however, I'm bringing this to the attention of Administrators as clearly the current attempt to handle this situation on wikipedia is not working, and is wasting time of dedicated users. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 16:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that Jack or his viewers were trying to get a Jack sucks article independent of the Bishop Auckland article, where there has been constant attempts to make him a notable resident, resisted by many editors. Having lotsa subscribers doesn't make you notable. Our normal procedures have kept this under control at BA - Roxy the dog 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah.. I'm pretty sure however, at BA, you still have users clearly making edits for clicks, and an attempt to be recognised, for example, a user recently added a reference to Jack, then swiftly deleted it themselves, which IMO is adding to issues, and is something that possibly needs addressing.

Obviously, we can't change the internet, but, with how these individuals are coming and using Wikipedia for clicks in their social circles, or trying to get recognision. It's a problem that needs addressing. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 20:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a job for an edit filter? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, though, I'd be inclined to disagree as there is some use cases of his name in reference to other people, such as on the TommyInnit article. So I'd be unsure exactly of how the edit filter should apply, as outright disallowing the edits, whilst would be helpful, would also hinder some wikipedians.

Other than that, most the other settings wouldn't do anything, as this group has already been warned several times about the malicious nature of their edits, and obviously, the issue is that this group is, in my opinion, abusively using wikipedia as a platform for clicks and causing a more than warrented amount of hassle for the good faith wikipedians involved. Additionally because this group has been gaming the name already, I'd be inclined to believe that this would cause further issue.

In an ideal world, we would just contact Jack, both to educate him, and get either the involved videos removed, or an edit made to make it clear the action is not condoned, to hopefully stop new people seeing the videos and coming here. It very much seems to be a case of, the times its mentioned in his videos, or in some form of media related to him, we get an influx of people deliberately trying to add his page again. But, I doubt that it is a truly possible solution. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To be fair this isn't the place for Youtubers to spread their fame on so this nonsense needs to stop, one person commented on the video and said it was nonsense, well I hate to be rude to that person but it is not nonsense they should read this essay at What Wikipedia is not. I watched the video before. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we need to create a new filter for this type of behavior, this JackSucksAtLife disruption behavior is getting persistent and annoying. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I find quite a few things on Wikipedia annoying (and even a PITA) but maybe some of the possible solutions, apart from boring old blocks and saltings as things occur, would be even more annoying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this, wouldn't want to create a more annoying solution for editors trying to add good faith edits.

Perhaps, however, an edit filter to warn users, just to try and urge them to stop, and tagging the entry. With administrators checking, working on presumed consensus could go through and delete relevent edits, or perhaps even oversight edits, to attempt to curb the behavior. Additionally, sanctioning repeat offenders who create these pages, perhaps? It's, I'll admit, somewhat annoying for those who have to check through, whilst however doing something more to make it clear we do not want this behaviour on this platform. Would that be something we can gain consensus agreement on, and something that both handles the situation, while also being relaxed enough to allow rule-abiding edits to be made?

Additionally, perhaps administrators, or the WMF could contact Jack, and just explain how his behaviour has led to an annoying amount of trolls on various pages on wikipedia, in a completely educational sense, could help curb his mentions of Wikipedia in his videos, which might also curb some of the waves we recieve of these edits. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 20:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The edit filter I requested is said to disallow, not warn. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you jumped the gun when we didn’t have consensus, especially when you incorrectly made the request as well.. 🤷‍♀️ NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 21:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I just want this nonsense of JackSucksAtLife to stop, I hate this Youtuber now and won't even subscribe to him for feeding the trolls for 6 years. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if this sounded rude to Youtuber himself, but this stuff is making me angry, I just need some time to calm down right now. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but, we don't just jump the gun on stuff like this when its making us angry. Especially because there is another side to this, even if its completely against our policy. There is a large group of a few hundred, if not thousand people, who dislike that their favourite creator is not on Wikipedia, and believe, especially given there are "articles" on him, that he is notable. Remember, we on wikipedia try to always assume good faith.

Personally, as much as our time is being wasted here, and as much as I personally believe they are behaving in bad faith, I think the bottom line we need to stand for is educating, as from what I have seen of the creator, both him and his audience are clearly misinformed of our procedures and standards. Hence why I came to AN to ask for an administrative opinion and guidence. As clearly current methods of handling this aren't working, and as of recent videos from the creator, he is still somewhat misinformed as to why an article of him currently doesn't exist. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 22:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies I just don't want the name of that Youtuber being mentioned anymore, he is a bad influence on the project, and thus should be disallowed by the filter. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Then.... stop bringing him up and dragging him back into this. The sooner you forget he exists, the sooner you can stop feeling oppressed by his existence and his stans' idiocy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll stop then, thanks for the advice, apologies if I sounded a little too angry. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@NeoJade: Massey has apologised for his fans' actions when they first spammed him on Wikipedia; telling him to knock it off is both going after the wrong person and closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Battle for Dream Island is in a very similar situation to Massey's, where stans ignorant of Wikipedia's policies and unwilling to bother learning them spam their obsession-of-the-moment and refuse to understand what we're telling them because their fandom trumps all other considerations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

While I would agree. He has made videos more recently, which are poking at the bear quite significantly.

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxKQ32BSQo667IUOlTgUVuBB4qzyJ4LRBn

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxnCrxsUF8lLqzbFp3Ehr-cAZpt5Cqm9V_

He has, in addition, had a 5 second monologue somewhere that I can't since find, saying to his fans "give wikipedia a break" but, surely he would know saying nothing is better for getting this to stop, right? NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It depends on if his fans are pestering him over it. And even if he said nothing, the horse's already bolted from the barn. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

NeoJade, I think we have successfully handled this over the past few years through deletion of drafts and putting protection on some page titles. I'm not sure why there is urgency at this particular moment in time and I have no idea of what kind of alternative solution you thought would emerge from a discussion on AN. It's not like any of us has a direct line to the article subject and can ask him to not encourage his fans and we definitely have no control over the thousands of viewers of his videos. We have limited means to deal with the articles and drafts that get created and while it might be a "waste of time", all vandal-fighting could be considered a waste of time but it's also necessary. We can discuss the possibility of a new edit filter but I see no magic antidote to protect the project from new editors creating dumb new drafts that just end up getting deleted. It's annoying, sure, but it's something we all try to address when we run across them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you do prove a point about all these "JackSucksAtLife" events. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have title blacklisted the strings "jacksucks" and "jack massey welsh". Unfortunately both Jack Welsh and Jack Massey are names used by unrelated people so there's a limit to what title blacklisting can do without false positives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Internet Celebrities and Phenomena and Fan Clubs

Maybe this discussion should continue at the Village Pump. What we are seeing with Jack Massey Welch or Jacksucksatlife is the same as we have seen at Battle for Dream Island. That is Internet fan clubs of people and phenomena who are widely documented by unreliable sources, and the fan clubs are determined to get a Wikipedia article for their person or game. These clubs try to get the article into Wikipedia by the stealth maneuver of changing the spelling of the title in various ways. This does not work, because Wikipedia volunteers are not stupid.

What may eventually happen is that someone looks for reliable sources that have documented the person or phenomenon. By this time, the fans have become their own worst enemy because most of the volunteer reviewers react negatively to any version of the name.

I don't have any particular advice here. The Wikipedia system is working in preventing the creation of article with unreliable sources and in blocking attempts to game the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Venezuelan politics

The Arbitration Commitee has resolved by motion that:

Following a successful appeal of their site ban to the Arbitration Committee, WMrapids (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The topic ban and interaction ban, which were passed at the same time as the site ban, remain in force.

Further, WMrapids is subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this motion, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Venezuelan politics

Page monitoring

The page Talk:United States Department of Defense, has been heating up very quickly due to recent events. Requesting admin monitoring of the page and formal dispute resolution processes. Rc2barrington (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I just full-protected the article for 12 hours because of the edit warring and told the participants to work it out on the talk page. Unfortunately, quite experienced editors are edit warring. I'm off to bed in about an hour, and probably won't be on-line again for about 10 hours. The protection on the page will probably need to be renewed in the morning. Donald Albury 01:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

RFD nom left in limbo

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 RFD discussion regarding a controversial redirect related to the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting should have been closed or relisted 3 days ago. It is currently the only active discussion on its log page, being ten days old. I'm posting this here so that someone takes care of the issue. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 8 September 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.

What am I not understanding about page restriction editnotice?

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 added a {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} to United States Department of Defense at Special:Diff/1310238373 this morning, per the instructions for that template. This is the first time I have imposed a page edit restiction, and I tried to follow the instructions on the template page. The notice has now been removed from the article twice. So, is or is not a page restriction editnotice supposed to be placed on the page under restrictions? And if not, how are editors supposed to know about the edit restrictions? Donald Albury 15:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

As the instructions say, it's supposed to be placed as an editnotice, not in article text. See the article talkpage, where someone else explained this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! All is sorted, now. Donald Albury 18:28, 8 September 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.

Changes to the functionaries team, September 2025

At their request, the CheckUser permissions of Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Vanamonde93 for their service as a CheckUser and their continuing service as an Oversighter.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, September 2025

Account creation error

I just singed up as a monthly contributor a week or two ago. Today when I went to check something on Wikipedia, I was surprised to get a request to contribute. Thinking I had to sign in , I created an account. And then I got an account creation error. What gives?

(Redacted) 2001:56A:F002:1D00:D5C:BE48:2F3B:796 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

What was the specific error message?

Note that donating to the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with your Wikipedia account. Donation records are not attached to accounts. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Their range is pblocked and account creation is set to disabled. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I've redacted the personally identifying information provided by the OP. I'll remove the account-creation prohibition from the pblock, but the OP is cautioned that if they are the same editor who was pblocked on this IP range from the article in question, a resumption of the behavior that resulted in the pblock will be frowned upon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Unblock request for Eni.Sukthi.Durres

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.

---

• Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,

I'm porting over an unblock request from the talk page of User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres for review from administrators.

Hello. I have returned to request another unblock for my account. I want to explain the reasons why my account was previously blocked: I added exaggerated and non-essential content, and when it was removed, I became frustrated and reacted poorly because I had spent a lot of effort on those edits and insisted on keeping them. I debated using inappropriate language, and in one case a comment I made was misinterpreted as a threat. As WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents notes, “Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact”, which perfectly describes my situation. I have reflected on my actions and worked on improving my English to communicate more clearly and avoid misunderstandings. I now understand the importance of adding relevant and verifiable content, following established guidelines, and engaging respectfully with other editors. If unblocked, I will focus solely on constructive contributions, carefully consider the relevance of my edits, and approach discussions calmly. My goal is to contribute positively, particularly to articles related to Albanian football and the national team, which I am passionate about.Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the unblock request is a good one and I'd be infavour of an unblock here; however, as this user was blocked 2 years ago and has had a number of requests declined I believe it's worth getting further input. I was not around for the initial incidents so if administrators who were involved see issues that I'm not seeing I'll default to their judgements.

Courtesy ping for involved administrators; @Deepfriedokra, @Kinu, @331dot.

CoconutOctopus talk 12:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hopeful endorse unblock I think they are ready. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• I've had a look. These things are always difficult to make a call on but on balance I'm happy to endorse an unblock as well. WaggersTALK 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock. I believe that the most recent unblock request is genuine and addresses the reason for the block and associated concerns adequately. I look forward to their positive contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 8 September 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.

Conduct of User:Sutyarashi on Ghulam Ahmad Bilour

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.

---

[[File:Afghan Kakezai Bilour TeamPage 2019.jpg|thumb|Evidence from the 2021 AKWT page showing Bilour’s role: Screenshot of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190515022345/http://afghankakezai.com/team.php Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust team page] from May 2019, featuring Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour and other members. The site also includes a dedicated "Kakezai" tab in the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190102041634/http://afghankakezai.com/files/directory.xls community directory], and states its mission as: “We work to improve the living standards of the identified displaced and underprivileged Afghan Kakezai communities through interventions such as quality education, vocational & skills training, protection, legal aid, health, enterprise development, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic development initiatives.” Ghulam Ahmad Bilour is listed as Chief Patron, indicating formal affiliation with the organization and the community it represents.]]

I am reporting User:Sutyarashi for repeated, unilateral removal of reliably sourced content from Ghulam Ahmad Bilour (see here and here and here), without consensus or policy-based rationale. Despite being challenged on the Talk page, they have:

• Removed archive-backed sources (AfghanKakezai.com, Khyber News, The News) that support Bilour’s Kakazai and Bajaur lineage
• Replaced them with an unsourced, polemical opinion essay from the Critical Muslim series (not peer-reviewed) under Oxford University Press imprint
• Repeatedly refused to justify the reliability of that source
• Accused me of edit warring despite clear edit summaries and sourcing
• Invoked policies like WP:BURDEN and WP:CONSENSUS inappropriately to assert control over the article

Their behavior raises concerns under WP:OWN, WP:GATE, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The full timeline of edits, diffs, sourcing rationale, and policy references follows:

On 1 September 2025, Sutyarashi made this edit with the edit summary, "Ed, rmv WP:BLOG and WP:FRINGE, added sources" thereby removing

• "Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.

and instead adding:

• Amir, Intikhab (26 April 2013). "A fortress under assault". Dawn. Retrieved 1 September 2025.
• Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012). Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-84904-223-9. ...Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.

No consensus was sought or explanation was provided on the talk page as to why the original source was removed. When I re-added the source...

• "Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.

...along with...

• Eight Years have Passed Since the Death of Bashir Ahmad Bilour. Khyber News. 2020-12-20. Retrieved 2025-09-01 – via YouTube. Description states: "Bashir Ahmad Bilour...belongs to a prominent political and social Kakazai family of Peshawar," referring to the Bilour family's ethnic affiliation.

...as well as...

• Ali Shah, Syed Inayat (2008-11-05). "Personifying the art of politics". The News (Pakistan). Archived from the original on 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2025-09-01. Known as Haji Sahib in Peshawar, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).

He left a comment on the talk page calling ""Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community." a blog under WP:BLOG and the video's description unfit for WP:RS under WP:CIRCULAR, calling them unreliable and obscure. When I gave a comprehensive rationale, he accused me of using verbose and LLM and asked me to repeat with less "verbosity." When I challenged his source

• Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012). Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-84904-223-9. ...Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.

by pointing out:

"Only one of the 20+ sources in Ghulam Ahmad Bilour’s article is from the book Pakistan?, which carries the imprint of Oxford University Press (OUP). Although published by OUP as part of the Critical Muslim series, the essay in question—“Peshawar Blues” by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad—is a polemical, unsourced opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed academic source. The Critical Muslim series is produced by the Muslim Institute and Hurst Publishers; it includes satire, polemics, and advertisements, and does not follow an academic peer-review process. The cited article (p. 77) offers no citations or scholarly sourcing for its claims about the Bilour family. Its tone is anecdotal, not ethnographic or academic, and it fails WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for biographical or ethnological claims.

The 2010 The News op-ed is by a non-expert (an accountant in Dublin), contains no citations, and uses slurs like “Khariaans”. It does not meet WP:RS or WP:BLP.

The invocation of WP:FRINGE is misplaced. Ethnic origin is not pseudoscience. Both Peshawar and Bajaur are verifiably sourced and can coexist under WP:NPOV. Removing one fails WP:DUE. Attempts to suppress reliably sourced content while dismissing counterpoints raise concerns under WP:OWN and WP:GATE.

He reacted strongly and immediately removed all of my edits with the edit summary, "Rmv non scholarly/tabloid sources per third opinion provided by WP editors and other concerns. Please don't add them back without establishing their reliability at talk page first. If you think OUP source is non-RS, feel free to take it to RSN"

In a nutshell, User:Sutyarashi has repeatedly:

• Deleted reliably sourced content without consensus,
• Claimed the burden of proof is on me to prove sources are reliable — even for their own additions,
• Refused to justify their favored source's reliability when challenged (see below),
• Accused me of edit warring when I restored valid content with proper edit summaries.

Here is the Timeline of Key Reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghulam_Ahmad_Bilour&diff=prev&oldid=1309058751 – I restored the archived source and added another (Khyber News video), both supporting Kakazai/Bajaur origins. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghulam_Ahmad_Bilour&diff=prev&oldid=1310358666 – I added Latif Yaad’s book listing Bilour as Kakazai (Mamund), and a 2014 CRSS podcast where Ilyas Bilour directly says their family came from Bajaur Agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghulam_Ahmad_Bilour&diff=prev&oldid=1310363467 – Sutyarashi reverted all of it and accused me of edit warring.

I also left a clear Talk page explanation:

My statement (22:14, 8 September 2025) explains the sourcing in detail and challenges the claim that the opposing source — a polemical essay in Critical Muslim — meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Sutyarashi relies heavily on a piece titled "Peshawar Blues" by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, published in Critical Muslim, and reprinted by Oxford University Press. However:

• The piece has no citations,
• It is an opinion essay, not academic scholarship,
• Critical Muslim is not a peer-reviewed journal,
• OUP publishes both scholarly and non-scholarly material.

Despite all this, Sutyarashi insists that the burden lies on me to prove the source is unreliable, while refusing to demonstrate that it is reliable — even after I challenged it per WP:BURDEN and WP:RS.

Relevant Policies Being Violated:

WP:BURDEN – The burden lies with the editor adding or defending contested material to show it complies with sourcing policy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP – The essay being used does not meet the requirements for a scholarly source. WP:CONSENSUS – Removal of well-sourced material also requires consensus. WP:OWN – Sutyarashi is treating the article as their own, reverting others' contributions and gatekeeping sources. WP:GATE – They are blocking reliably sourced but inconvenient content from inclusion.

I am requesting administrator attention on this matter. The user:

• Refuses to justify their favored source's reliability,
• Unilaterally deletes well-sourced content from newspapers of record and direct interviews,
• Accuses others of edit warring for restoring legitimate content,
• Misrepresents policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN in a weaponized manner.

I am not willing to take this to RSN, as I am not the one adding or relying on the disputed source. The burden lies with the person adding or defending it. This kind of selective enforcement is toxic. Administrators, please advise: What policy-based objection is there to the Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust citation when it is used narrowly, under WP:PRIMARY and WP:DEADREF, to identify an organizational listing — not to establish broader ethnographic claims? Why is verifiable information about Bilour’s Kakazai heritage — including being Pashtun, Kakazai, or hailing from Bajaur Agency — being excluded, while an unsourced essay is retained without discussion or consensus? These identities are not mutually exclusive and are supported by reliable sources. Why can't they coexist under WP:NPOV? Why is having Hindko-speaking and hailing from the inner city of Peshawar more important than a Pashtun Kakazai hailing from Bajaur Agency? Why can't they co-exist, given that they are supported by the reliable sources? It is important to reiterate that these deletions occurred without establishing consensus on the article’s Talk page, despite active discussion and detailed counterarguments.I am requesting administrative intervention to stop User:Sutyarashi from continuing unilateral deletions of reliably sourced content, and to evaluate whether their conduct meets the threshold for WP:OWN or WP:IDHT. Thank you.

References

McKhan ^(talk) 09:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand the situation. You disagree with Sutyarashi about what the article should say, and about which sources should be used. You have reverted one another back and forth a couple of times. There has been some talk page discussion, mostly between you and Sutyarashi, and you attempted to start an RfC to get more eyes on the matter; the only responses to your RfC have been one person observing that it fails WP:RFCBRIEF, and another which seems to be someone disagreeing with your position. I don't know why you aren't willing to take this to RSN - you can't say that the other party in the disagreement is the only one direlying on a disputed source, you are obviously both disputing one another's sources. There are also dispute resolution channels you could have explored. Unless there is something I am missing, this is a fairly commonplace content dispute, leaving aside the back-and-forth reverting which you have both engaged in. I would suggest that you try dispute resolution - admin noticeboards do not resolve content matters. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Girth. To clarify a key point: I did not undo Sutyarashi’s additions. I preserved them and added additional reliably sourced content alongside them, with clear edit summaries and detailed explanations on the Talk page. My concern here is not just a content disagreement, but a persistent pattern of conduct:

• Repeated removal of reliably sourced content without consensus
• Refusal to engage substantively on RS or sourcing policy grounds
• Dismissal of any opposing sources as “blogs,” “tabloids,” or "obscure" without justification
• Insistence that I prove their source is unreliable, reversing WP:BURDEN
• Attempts to control article content despite Talk page pushback
• Assertive, one-sided interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, used to gatekeep and justify deletions — raising concerns under WP:OWN and WP:GATE

That said, I take your point and will open a focused RSN thread. If the same conduct pattern persists through those channels, I’ll re-approach ANI with a clearer trail.

Thanks again. McKhan ^(talk) 15:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, your first edit preserved their edits, but this was a straightforward revert by you. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, Girth. Just to clarify your comment — while it may "look" like a revert at first glance, the underlying edit history shows that I preserved Sutyarashi's additions and built upon them, rather than reverting them wholesale.

This began with this version, which stated:

'"Bilour was born in a Kakazai family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied at Edwardes College and married soon later. He hails from Bajaur Agency, and comes from a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."

That was replaced by this version:

"Bilour was born in an old Hindko-speaking Peshawari merchant family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied at Edwardes College and married soon later. The Bilour clan hails from the inner city of Peshawar, and are a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."

And later this version further trimmed even that:

"Bilour was born in an old Hindko-speaking merchant family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied at Edwardes College. The Bilour belongs to a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."''

When I made my edit, I preserved Sutyarashi's core additions — such as "Hindko-speaking merchant family" and "inner city of Peshawar" — and added reliably sourced material on Bilour’s Kakazai and Bajaur heritage alongside it. At no point did I remove their material or revert back to a prior version.

By contrast, their edits repeatedly and unilaterally removed everything I contributed, dismissing it via summaries such as:

• "Ed, rmv WP:BLOG and WP:FRINGE, added sources"
• "Rmv non scholarly/tabloid sources... If you think OUP source is non-RS, feel free to take it to RSN"
• "Stop edit warring. Consensus is needed for the material you want to add... another editor has clearly found such sources to be unreliable."

Yet I was the one who initiated an RFC and attempted to seek consensus, while facing constant resistance and accusations of unreliability for sources described as "blogs", "obscure", or "dead" — without proper policy-based engagement.

So while I respect your framing of this as a content dispute, I do believe there is a pattern of ownership and gatekeeping that has gone beyond ordinary editorial disagreement, and which I documented in good faith at ANI.

Still, as you advised, I will now open a focused RSN thread to address the underlying RS concern directly.

Thank you again for the time and attention. McKhan ^(talk) 16:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm… not saying if it is LLM generated, but maybe it is at least partially, considering at minimum the tone, but I'm not going to say it's in any way definite 37.186.35.134 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

No opinion on the substance, but NFCC doesn't cover noticeboards, so I added nowiki tags to the image at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 9 September 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.

Why am I blocked?

I am blocked and do not know why as I never post 2600:100E:B08F:1C37:455:FC71:C049:CC1 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

If you can post here, you are not blocked. If you have an account that is blocked, your need to log in and post to your user talk page. If you never edit, though, you don't need to worry about it as blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Their range is partially blocked. 84.245.120.214 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Since they don't edit, it doesn't affect them. Even if they did want to edit, the partial block does not prevent them from doing so to every page or article on Wikipedia but one. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I do see that it prevents account creation- it could affect them if they just tried to visit from another Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

They are blocked from a talk page. Secretlondon (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be closed as the user is not blocked, at least from any page, except for User talk:Magnolia677 which they were partially blocked from in July. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This could just be collateral damage from a large rangeblock. The range blocked is a /43, which is quite large; there are over two million /64 subnets (which usually represent one individual user) in it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reblocked removing the 'account creation blocked' part - honestly that should be disabled by default when pblocking an IP, IMHO. And I've seen cases before where rangeblocks somehow manage to stop IPs outside the blocked range from creating accounts. That said, if the OP was actually caught by the pblock here, the pblock is clearly working as intended. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you User:ClarkKentWannabe editing logged out? If so, you shouldn't be editing at all as that account is blocked. If you are not them, then why are you posting on their User talk page, out of all of the millions of pages you can successfully edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

...so instead of the pblock on the range, they were caught in CKW's autoblock? That's a plot twist I wasn't expecting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Heads up for the latest spambot

There's some new spambot making the rounds of various projects, injecting crap about customer service numbers at various airports. I've seen reports of this on eswiki and simplewiki. Here's a typical example from simple. I'm sure this will reach enwiki at some point. I suggest admins get aggressive about blocking, WP:G5, and creating edit filters when it happens. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like I'm behind the times. Special:AbuseFilter/793 already addresses this. RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could use some admin attention. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

From a checkuser standpoint, if this is coordinated it appears to be more WP:MEAT than one person socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just for some extra info, poking around at the listed Twitter account in the infobox for the article gives some interesting posts and info. To start with, this isn't the first time we have had an article for Gunther Fehlinger as it was deleted in 2023 under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Fehlinger. Back then, the account tried to get their followers to keep the article. (1, 2) In any case, it seems that the account has gone back to trying to get followers of the account to canvas Fehlinger's article to prevent it from being deleted. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism in List of countries by external debt

The Page List of countries by external debt has been vandalized three times in a row. Maybe it should be blocked. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it has resolved itself. If there is more vandalism, them WP:RFPP is the better avenue. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse

Please block Special:Contributions/KimHeungSou, it is a cross-wiki spam and advertising user.[2][3] 14.191.62.33 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this situation is more complex than a simple accusation and quick block would call for. This editor is related to the article subject, was informed about our policies about editing with a COI and is trying now to abide by them. Let's give them a little time to respond to the warning they have received. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

OK! 14.191.62.33 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Inviting admins to CSD delete a file that I uploaded early

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 uploaded a file, but per WP:NFCC it should be deleted. Rather than letting the full week run out, it could avoid some disputes if an admin deletes File:Iryna Zarutska.jpg early. It was meant to be fair use, but the article is locked, so it cannot be added to the page and a couple of editors on the talk page are trying to come up with a free image. Deleting the file early could reduce some of the disputes around the article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 11 September 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.

Erika Kirk AfD discussion

The AfD of the wife of recently killed political activist Charlie Kirk (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk) has gone off the rails, lots of non-compliant comments by infrequent/IP editors, and there have been some disruptive comments e.g. [4] [5]. The discussion could use some additional eyes. Many thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts rollout

Hey, we've posted a message about deploying temporary accounts here on English WP. Since this change very much impacts your work, I wanted to let you know here too. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

For those who don't know the lingo, temporary accounts are what will replace IP addresses. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49, I didn't remember not to rely on jargon :D

About "replace IP addresses", yeah, sometimes I present it this way too, although - a little clarification for the sake of those who haven't heard about the project - it's not that simple. They kinda replace IPs (they aren't registered so they do inherit some of WP:UNREGISTERED including Wikipedia:IP editors are human too which could get renamed into Temp accounts are humans too), but purely technically, they are a new layer on top of IP addresses, so some 1:1 comparisons don't make sense. I wrote more about this in this comment.

It may feel complicated but as a geek, I think it's pretty interesting. It opens up new options like reduced collateral damage on good-faith users impacted by range blocks. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• For reference, this is what it looks like in production: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hideliu=1 — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I was wonding what they were going to look like. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Request to close the POSTNOM RfC closure review

Is any admin willing to close #RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM? It's been on this page for a month and has had one substantive comment in the last 21 days. It's been listed at WP:Closure requests for 14 of those.

I don't think this is a difficult close—even if I set my own viewpoints on the issue aside, to my eye there's a clear consensus particularly among people who did not participate in the original RfC. But it's a closure review, so someone ought to do a formal assessment of consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedian Liberation Front

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.

---

Came across this User:WLF Ever/sandbox at AfC, deleted it, and blocked the user as !HERE. Other than that, I don't know if it's worth flagging this to our colleagues at fr.wiki, or just assume it's purely a hoax? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a splinter group of the User:Popular Front for the Liberation of Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Splitters! DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand. Wikipedia is already free. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Monty Python's Life of Brian. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, they are indeed prolific LTAs on frwiki (see fr:WP:Faux-nez/FLW). Thanks for flagging this! quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 11:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested global locks for all of them since they're causing trouble here and in eswiki as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

We are not the popular front, but a french association as Quebecbuy said @CambridgeBayWeather and @DoubleGrazing

Viva el FLW (talk) Viva el FLW (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you ping me because you want to be blocked, or? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. For being a sockpuppet and not having a sense of humour. Their username should have been "Vive le Wikipedia libre". How Gaulleing to mention Quebec and get that wrong! CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing

Yeah that's true !

You know, we are an association of quite 150 people from 7 different countries, we can do everything on Wikipedia.

But if french admins unblock Ma Dacia Logan, we will stop vandalizing of course.

Ma Dacia Logan was opressed while he was just a good man, it's unfair. That's why we are beating for him.

PS : you have the honour to see a message from the vice-president of the WLF ! ChatGPTlover44 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You should not vandalise regardless of if that person is unblocked or not. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked ChatGPTlover44. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 12 September 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.

BLP article on the husband of the new/current interim Prime Minister of Nepal

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.

---

• Durga Prasad Subedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)<

Article is mostly about his involvement in a hijacking in the 70s. Seems very negative. It'd be good if someone experienced with BLPs could take a look. Related BLP/N thread. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying the editor who created the article did anything wrong. It's a political hot topic (in Nepal, and perhaps other places), so the article should get some more eyes on it. I could be completely wrong and the article could be 100% OK. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Justification regarding the article. The plane hijack is not a negative event in history of contemporary Nepal when it was to fund the movement. Having been member of the then youth organization, he was party of democratic movement. In the same process he was jailed while other details are not much known. His own auto biography speaks the facts as written. His own biography written by Mr. Subedi himself is mentioned even in bibliography section. Hope it will be reviewed and refined more with more contents available on media regarding him. For the same, i'd better keep update tag on the article. Franked2004 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I've started a dicussion on the (now redirect's) talkpage. More eyes are always appreciated, but I'm not seeing any behavioural issues that need addressed, and I do agree with the article creator that the hijacking isn't quite as negative as it first appears. It is falling pretty nicely in that "is this guy a freedom fighter or a terrorist" topic area, though, but I think we can keep discussion at talkpage and (maybe) the BLP/N thread. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:32, 13 September 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:Elmidae engaging in edit warring, "I can't hear you" and possibly WP:OWN at Antechinus

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.

---

Elmidae has dug in their heels on the notion that an article should not be intelligible to the reader without consulting the article's sources. I think this is a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, but they do not seem to be open to constructive dialogue. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The IP has already been warned not to continue reverting or they might be blocked from editing the article. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

"The IP" is neither here nor there. Please look at the behavioural issues with the logged-in user as well. Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Either there is no behavioural issue or it's with 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (is it ok to call you that?), who has misrepresented Elmidae's position (I don't know whether wilfully or accidentally). I can see none on the part of Elmidae. The article has been protected to prevent you both from edit-warring. Just talk civilly on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:39, 13 September 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.

Redirect 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.

---

Wanted to create the Satyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam redirect as an alternative spelling for Sathyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam. But it is apparently blocked due to some previous socking blacklist for Prem Khan. Would appreciate if an rd can be created here (or the blacklist removed?). Thanks.

PS: Would also like to rd Satyabhamakoru Premalekhanam and Sathyabhamakoru Premalekhanam to the same target. Gotitbro (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Curbon7 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 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.

Draft:Ethan Brunton and Ethan Brunton

• Draft:Ethan Brunton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ethan Brunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure what to do with respect to Draft:Ethan Brunton and Ethan Brunton. It looks like the created first started working on the draft back in June and might've felt they weren't getting anywhere; so, they decide to create the article themselves in the mainspace instead earlier today. I don't know if it they did a copy-paste move or started anew, but the subject almost certainly doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPOL, given the sources cited. I was just going to draftify the article, but then noticed the draft. What's the best thing to do here? FWIW, I only came across these pages while checking on the licensing for some files uploaded by the creator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are using the moveToDraft script, you can change the draft target if it's already occupied. I moved it to Draft:Ethan Brunton 2. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Bignay National High School XfD

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bignay National High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It’s been a while since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bignay National High School was closed, but it was a WP:NACD and WP:INVOLVED. I think it should be reclosed and G6’ed accordingly. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and advised the closer against such closures. If there's a procedural reason why the discussion should be reopened and reclosed, I'm sure someone will tell me; for now, lazy as I am, I've left it as it was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reclosed for the formality. I's crossed, t's dotted, and all that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 13 September 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.

Reporting of 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.

---

Hi I've been trying to make meaninful contributions to a certain wiki page, however the administrator is making unfound accusations to undo these changes. The language used was disrespectful and harsh, how can I report an administrator? J05n99 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You can describe your grievance here(after you formally notify Hammersoft of this discussion as instructed at the top of this page). Be aware that your own actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 September 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.

Concern Regarding Unverified Claim About Akan Language Speakers in Ghana

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 this message finds you well. I recently came across a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_language) claiming that about 80% of Ghanaians speak the Akan language. The page cited a website ( "Akan (Twi) at Rutgers". www.amesall.rutgers.edu.) as its source, but when I checked, the website does not exist (https://www.amesall.rutgers.edu/languages/128-akan-twi). I could also not find any statistics from the Ghana Statistical Service or any research-based organization to support this claim.

It is important that Wikipedia entries be backed by reliable sources. I respectfully suggest that the author of this page either provide an authentic and verifiable source for this information or remove the statement entirely. Presenting unverified information misleads readers and undermines the credibility of the platform.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter 128.194.2.58 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 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.

Full protection

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 File:Full-protection-shackle.svg has been overwritten and replaced with a new design that really stands out from the other locks. This should probably be discussed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed: given the current design was agreed upon in a RfC I don't think it should be unilaterally changed like this. CoconutOctopus talk 09:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I restored the original design for now; I think such a change should require some form of consensus. CoconutOctopus talk 09:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The user who made the change started a discussion about it at File talk:Full-protection-shackle.svg#Changed color to gold; so, that's probably where (at least for now) any concerns about it should be expressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Anachronist who made the change said If there's any objection, my upload can always be reverted. This issue is probably better worked out at the file talk thread they started at File talk:Full-protection-shackle.svg#Changed color to gold. Left guide (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I already notified them of this discussion. This is not the first time I've posted to AN. And I do think it was appropriate for me to bring this up here, as this is an issue of "general interest to administrators" and very few people watch that page in comparison to this one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like interface didn't give "there's a new comment" it usually does while I was writing the reply above, which was somewhat reliant on the text changed in this revision. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Is WP:BOLD really applicable on incredibly high-use WP:GOLDLOCKed files like this? the fact that the file in question is literally the aforementioned gold lock image is honestly ironic... 88.97.192.42 (talk) 10:19, 14 September 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.

Block request

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.

---

Note: This invovles this ANI

To keep things short I was permanently blocked from the Template:Russia–United States relations and when I requested unblock the admin decided not to. Am I allowed to request the permanent ban be applied to both parties then (WikiCleanerMan) since both parties were involved with this ANI. This will allow other editors to take the lead from now on for the edits? I think its only fair both parties be held accountable and not allowed to make edits anymore, if its just one party (myself) then the other party (WikiCleanerMan) can go back and continue editing. I was not aware the other ANI had gotten archived, sorry for the late notice on this, I had intedned to append it to that ANI. -4vryng ^talk 22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Withdraw, can close case now -4vryng ^talk 00:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Allowed to ask, yes. Willing to risk getting completely blocked instead of blocked from 1 page, that's another question. You should evaluate your options and see if you want to withdraw this question. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Sarek, I understand what your saying. However, I dont believe this should resort in a permanent block for me from wikipedia, it seems just and fair both parties should be held equally accountable if one looks at the history of events that unfolded so that is all I was requesting. I was permanently blocked when I said I was concerned both parties would continue reverting each other, as had happened in the past but that should have resulted in a permanent ban of both parties not just one since I tried my best for 4 months to resolve the situation if one looks at the history. Outside of that I am doing my regular edits on other articles, life goes on as usual for me on wikipedia. I just wanted to bring this up to see if there was agreement with what I explained, if not I will move on. -4vryng ^talk 23:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The ability to WALK AWAY is one of the most vital for a successful editing career here. I forgot how to do it, and almost lost my admin bit. I resigned it instead, and when I first tried to get it back, the community didn't think I was ready. So, basically, if you don't go edit something else and pretend WCM doesn't exist, then... well, I tried. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay understood, feel free to delete/close this request then -4vryng ^talk 00:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If you get blocked for edit warring regardless of any alleged unfairness with how the other party/ies are treated best solution is still to concentrate on what you always needed to do and come to consensus on the talk page. If your preferred version is clearly superior shouldn't be too hard. That way you really "win" in the only way that matters. Who really gives a damn about the other party/ies not being blocked when you "won" the actual dispute? Only reason to care about blocks is if you think you can't "win" the actual dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thank you Nil and Sarek. Feel free to delete/close the request. I will move on to other articles -4vryng ^talk 00:33, 15 September 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 partial block to 2806:2a0:1516:8eea:8000::/48

The IP range 2806:2a0:1516:8eea:8000::/48 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring for months at the page Morena (political party). The user adds information that alleges the party is colluded with drug dealers, something I personally don't doubt. The issue is that sources cannot conclude such collusions since no one from the party has been on trial as such or the party has been determined to be a narco-political party internally or internationally. The IP adds multiple sources supposedly backing up these claims, but the sources themselves don't actually mention the claims, rather, they are the typical "if A and B then C" type of sources. The user has been asked multiple times, by several users,[6][7][8] to discuss the changes, which the IP has openly declined, as the user thinks that the WP:TRUTH shouldn't be censored or discussed.[9][10]

I'd explain the issues but they sometimes fall into BLP issue as the commentary added by the IP is simply not backed by the sources example 1, example 2

I'm asking for a partial block from that page, although the range has edited other Morena-related articles with similar issue (Here, for example, the user uses the brother's page as a coatrack), or a partial block from the article's space. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

TBAN appeal and request to re-open Close Challenge

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 posted a close challenge (with full support and encouragement of the closing admin) only to be subjected to an immediate flooding of opposing users demanding I be topic banned.

1. Arguments made in the close challenge are citations of the previous appeal efforts with the closing admin, who acknowledged numerous valid points in the arguments, encouraged me to file a close challenge, and offered to co-author it. To characterize the initiating incident here as a “further example” of my inappropriate behavior in the topic space is unsupported and was pushed through by a group of users.

2. The close challenge was only discussed and adjudicated by those who rushed to the page, not participants of the previous RFC and moratorium discussions, who had not yet even been made aware of the filing.

3. I was banned almost immediately by a "consensus" of a uniform group of editors, including one who has camped out on the Zionism talk page, and others showing up within a few hours of my post (despite it only appearing on AN and the closer’s talk page).

4. I do my very best to abide by all expected rules and procedures, and learn/improve as I go. I am committed to receiving criticism and advice to ensure I am improving as an editor. I was tbanned based upon supposed “transgressions” that were not adjudicated in a thoughtful manner. I believe a proper assessment by impartial admins is warranted.

Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic ban was an appropriate response to battleground behavior and reopening that appeal again would be disruptive on its face. I would suggest Allthemilescombined1 find some other topic to edit on. Simonm223 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: moved from ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hmm I agree that the topic ban thread was closed too hastily. In my !vote, which was the last before the discussion was closed, I put forward a cogent argument for editing restrictions for Allthemilescombined1 beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict, as another thread open at ANI at the time initiated by Allthemilescombined1, now archived following the tban, displayed Allthemilescombined1 doubling down on some rather absurd personal attacks against Cdjp1 in the context of work on antisemitism topics. Discussion should have been allowed to continue in order to consider my suggestion of broader sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  If the topic ban is too narrow I wouldn't be opposed to examining whether additional scope is required. But I don't think readmitting this editor to IP pages would be a net positive. Simonm223 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: most of this appeal revolves around accusing other editors of malfeasance, and fails to touch upon the reason why the user was tbanned to begin with. I'd recommend Allthemilescombined1 to withdraw it before a boomerang hits them. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Too late. I've proposed the boomerang do just that. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking for a fair hearing from an uninvolved admin who has perspective on the situation. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I am not WP:INVOLVED with respect to this topic as an admin, as I have only commented in an admin capacity at ANI and have not participated in editing or discussing Zionism, although you are of course able to solicit further admins' opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are exactly the same arguments made before, and amount to "it's everyone else's fault, not mine". I would suggest that the OP withdraw this challenge lest (as mentioned above by Rosgull and Simonm223) the sanctions be expanded, not reduced, and that they find a different topic area to quietly edit for six months before appealing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to request a mentor, someone uninvolved in the I/P space, to advise me on how I can improve in compliance with expectations. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

In your topic ban, you were advised note that in most cases editing productively and without controversy for at least six months on other topics is considered best practice before appealing. Yet, here you are a little over a month later (with minimal editing activity since then) appealing your ban. I'm not sure a mentor is going to help here. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to add, this appeal seems unlikely to succeed for many reasons including that mentioned by EvansHallBear. After 6 months from now perhaps you can appeal while seeking a mentor but there's no point worrying about one now when you will remain topic banned from the area. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

A balanced editing restriction would be a more fitting response to my actions than a topic ban, and providing a mentor would help me improve. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Editors seem to think a more fitting restriction might be an site ban and the more you try to argue against your topic ban the more likely editors are to agree. Generally the time to argue for a weaker sanction is either before it's imposed or well after when you've demonstrated maybe we can trust you. Not in the immediateish aftermath where you try to say we were wrong for what we just did. Note I didn't participate in the original discussion AFAIK but still say "we". Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You ceasing your forum shopping and aspersion casting would be more fitting. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to know why Allthemilescombined1 is choosing to once again misrepresent what @Chetsford: said to them regarding challenging the closure of a discussion? This misrepresentation is continually repeated despite Chetsford having previously clarified it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2025, (UTC)

Indef ban proposal

For failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK when given plenty of input from the community that they should do so, and for continuing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, I propose that Allthemilescombined1 be indefinitely banned. TarnishedPath^talk 03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Enough is enough. Allthemilescombined1 has failed to get a clue and continues with their disruptive behaviour after the community has made them aware that the behaviour is not welcome. TarnishedPath^talk 03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Editors please also see Special:Permalink/1303734914 where they launched this same appeal as a request for arbitration. I think the community is well over the forum shopping from this editor. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support but I might reconsider if they withdraw the request and review WP:NOTTHEM.Simonm223 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  Simonm223 just to point out that they filed at ARC on 1 August, and it was closed the same day. Mind you, I guess that means they didn't withdraw their request. A good point about reviewing NOTTHEM; perhaps that should be a condition of their unblock appeal in six months? (Thinking SO.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks FIM. I'm aware the ARC request was closed very quickly. I more meant that they withdraw this appeal of their topic ban. I thought the topic ban was an appropriate outcome of the ARC request considering their past history of the page. I understand they also tried to get it overturned at AE? My principal concern is that Allthemilescombined1 seem unwilling to abide by their topic ban and edit something unrelated to Israel/Palestine. If they withdraw this request and accept that they were topic banned I would be less likely to be concerned that enhanced measures are necessary to prevent disruption and as we should not be punitive, if I have confidence they'll abide by their topic ban, I don't see as much reason for a block. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• I had floated further sanctions in the section above, but to be honest I was thinking something more along the lines of an added topic-ban from antisemitism per the issues with AGF and Cdjp1 that I highlighted. I am not certain that there's been enough disruption to justify a site ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal is excessive and troubling. I find it politically driven and biased. Every editor has the right to argue their case, and it is particularly important, also from a gender perspective, to ensure that women (in this case, someone from Women in Red who works to promote women’s biographies) are able to speak out without being silenced. This suggestion strikes me as extremely disproportionate and harmful to the principles of open debate. שלומית ליר (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, people do not have a right on this platform to endlessly cast aspersions and WP:FORUMSHOP when they don't get their way, as has happened the first time they came here, at WP:ARC and now here again. TarnishedPath^talk 12:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:NOTFREESPEECH, the "principles of open debate" do not take precedence over productively building an encyclopedia. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I would not hinge my argument on their participation in Women in Red Shlomit, as most of their contributions in the area are of dubious quality and relevance, as has been highlighted to them on their talk page and in previous discussions of their conduct. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2025, (UTC)

• Support. Editors have the right to argue their case, but not to continuously re-litigate their case forever, especially not on spurious grounds like these; beyond a certain point, when consensus is steadifastly against them, editors need to be able to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on if they're going to be able to edit collaboratively. Allthemilescombined1 has continuously refused to do that; the fact that they felt it necessary to not just appeal their topic-ban but to try and continue the underlying dispute again (after the RFC was closed, after a moratorium was placed on the subject, after the close-review was closed and after the editor has already been topic-banned due to their endless intransigence on this topic) shows a level of unyielding tendentious behavior that leaves us with no real room for anything but a ban. Beyond a certain point editors need to be able to accept decisions they disagree with in order to edit on Wikipedia; Allthemilescombined1 has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in doing so and will continue to attempt to bludgeon our processes via every angle available to them on this so long as they have access to Wikipedia. Editorial time, energy, and focus is a limited resources and editors are not allowed to endlessly strive to consume it simply because they are dissatisfied with the outcome of our dispute-resolution mechanisms. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:ROPE, they make good contributions elsewhere. They got what they asked for, two admins weighed in, a warning to drop this now (where raising it again within 6 months would result in an indef) should be sufficient. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - I am in concurrence with Rosguill, that while this is a rather silly filing, there's not enough disruption in my opinion to consider an indef ban. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cdjp1, repeatedly misrepresenting editors, repeatedly casting aspersions and forum shopping isn't enough? TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

While serious conduct matters that probably warrant some sanction, I do not like Indef bans generally, and in this case do not consider what we've seen to be serious enough, or in areas, that I would cross to supporting an indef. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose It certainly is reasonable to request a review of a tban, especially if one feels that it was a pile on rather than a careful review of issues. Saying as much isn't disruptive. Moving to an indef is well beyond any sort of protection of Wikipedia. If the editor is tbanned and not violating that tban and not causing any issue in other topic areas then not only is a indef not justified, calling could be viewed as punnitive or simply trying to remove a viewpoint one disagrees with - note: I'm not saying that is the case here, only that such actions have been used this way in the past and should be avoided. Springee (talk) 11:45, 15 September 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.

RfC Close - Gaza genocide

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 like to request that an administrator or experienced editor close this RfC about whether Wikipedia should declare, in its own voice, that a genocide is ongoing in Gaza.

I was going to make a request at WP:ANRFC and saw one is already active. I’m making a note here since Gaza genocide is classified as “top importance” for several of our projects.

The RfC has run for 47 days. Over 90 editors have commented. Approximately 55 favor the proposed change, and c. 35 oppose it (I include, in that group, arguments for a procedural close). There is extensive commentary and data analysis from editors.

Since the RfC started, several additional actors have weighed in, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel.

Thanks for your time. -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 15 September 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.

Clarification on my TOPICBAN

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 appreciate that I was given a topic ban. I would like guidance on how it applies going forward. The topic ban was on "discussing whether or not any Pokémon characters are main characters". I understood that it could extend to discussion on supporting or background Pokémon characters and so on, as it might go around the essence of the topic ban and relates to the core issue.

But recently, I received a warning from the admin when I brought up a suggestion of keeping to characters that have English Wikipedia pages. I made the suggestion since it came to me, I felt it did not violate the topic ban and I thought the other editor might agree with it. I believed this did not violate the topic ban, but the admin indicated it did because the thread involved Pokémon main characters. I was like oh, I guess that makes sense, if I am continuing a discussion that brought it up, it could mean I am continuing in a discussion about main Pokémon characters. So I asked whether I could start a new discussion with the suggestion, but the admin advised against it, stating it involves which characters to include. But as I understood it, the topic ban applies to discussion of main Pokémon characters, not necessarily to discussions about inclusion criteria or notable characters.

Could I have clear guidelines on this topic ban? Master106 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Master106 Topic bans are "broadly constructed", the essay WP:BROADLY tries to explain what this means. As a rule of thumb - if you genuinely cannot tell if an edit is covered by a topic ban it probably is.

It seems that instead of trying to argue which characters should be included based on which ones are "main characters", you are now trying to argue which of these characters should be included based on which ones are "notable characters". Even if this is not a 100% clear cut violation of the topic ban I imagine a lot of admins reviewing those edits would see them as a continuation of the disruption you were topic banned for, and would impose sanctions accordingly. I would advise you to stop editing those lists of characters completely and find something else to do, before you end up with a broader topic ban or block. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this topic ban was imposed rather than a topic ban on Pokemon entirely, but I think you should just avoid Pokemon entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:31, 14 September 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.

Possibly undoing or enabling account creation on one of my old blocks

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 in March last year, I blocked 41.75.160.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three years to deal with disruption in economy articles, but the earliest edit I can find meeting that description is about a month beforehand (therefore, it seems to me now that three years was a very much disproportionate amount of time for which to block this range ). I would therefore ask that the block be lifted ... except this database query shows a very large number of blocks of open proxies by the no-longer-active ST47ProxyBot on this range (see for instance these block log links [11], [12], and [13]), which are common with Carrier-grade NAT systems in Africa like Uganda where this range is from, which give me pause about the idea of unblocking it, even if I could (but perhaps enabling account creation on the range might work out too). Coincidentally (or not), the last IP whose block log I linked added some spam just before their block in March 2024 that I've only just reverted. I can't remember if the open proxy threat factored in to my calculation of the block length in this case. I opened this thread in response to this message on my talk page. I'd be OK with any decision that's made here. Graham87 (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I lifted the block. African IPs (among others) tend to almost always show up as proxies. There aren't assigned a whole lot of IP addresses and many IP addresses have many users on them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, works for me. No open proxies/Unfair blocking on Meta is worth reading too. I just wasn't sure how the proxies should factor in to figuring out what to do here; it sounds like in this case the answer is "not at all". Graham87 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 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.

Greece men's national basketball team - Depth chart - Unreferenced edits

I would like to ask for the administrator’s attention to the section “Depth chart” in the article Greece men's national basketball team. This section used to include in a depth chart table all the players of the national team who were recently called to the team and participated in various recent tournaments (friendly, qualification and major tournament games). Those players were placed in the table according to their positions as they were referenced in the official page of the “Hellenic Basketball Federation”. In addition, there were further references from the Greek media indicating the coach’s selections among those players over the past months, in order to justify the team’s depth per position, as it was presented in the table.

However, at some point in time that table was changed by a user to something that is totally unsourced, while all previous citations were removed. The table now only includes the roster players of the last tournament (EuroBasket 2025), while some of them are put in different positions from what it was referenced, not only via the official page of the Hellenic Basketball Federation, but also via the FIBA EuroBasket webpage. I tried many times to revert the table to a state supported by citations, but that user kept changing it until we were both blocked from further edits and the page remained since then to that state. His argument is that there is no specific reference needed for that table, as those are the only players included in the EuroBasket team roster. You can see more details for that in the talk page of the article and what he wrote to my personal talk page, as well as you can see his aggressive approach and the personal attacks WP:PA towards myself ([14], [15], [16]). Apparently the positions are now assigned according to how those players were used in some EuroBasket games and not how they are referenced in reliable sources based on their natural position.

Regarding to all this, I would like to point out 2 things:

1. A national team consists of more than the 12 players used in a roster for a specific tournament each time. A team roster is filled out by a selection from a reserve pool of players according to various factors, such as type of tournament, player availability etc. For each tournament the roster can be different. The depth chart does not aim to show the tournament roster which is presented separately in a different section in the article or in other articles. It aims to show the reserve pool of the team. Otherwise it doesn't add any useful information to the article.

2. Depending on the game, a coach may use a player differently in various positions, even if those are not the player’s natural position. However, this is not what the team’s depth chart is meant to show. It shows the depth in options and the reserves per natural position. This is a usual misunderstanding for many editors and as a result I often see people changing the table after every game, especially in regards to the starting lineup, based on how the coach used the players in that particular last game. Even if a player is going to be used in a team differently from his/hers natural position for the most part, in any case this has to be referenced by reliable citations, and I do not think there is a more reliable source from the team’s federation.

Regardless how this table is going to be finally structured, it must be supported by reliable sources. Please take all the required actions for this issue including WP:RV and if needed WP:RFP. Thank you in advance. Clicklander (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute; since you’ve already opened discussion on the talk page, you should consider the options at WP:DR, starting with WP:3O. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No I didn't open a discussion, I commented in the discussion and the dispute is for another reason: Whether or not this table is original research. To me it is not WP:OR, it is information presented in a table, but this is another topic. What I am saying here is that if such a table has place in the article, it should always be supported by reliable references as per WP:REF. Clicklander (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Well if you're not willing to discuss your content dispute you could voluntarily refrain from editing so we don't have to block you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I think my point is clear. Please remove first unsourced content and then anyone is free to express his/hers opinion how this table should be structured and if it is really needed. Clicklander (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes and our point is clear. If you make demands and edit war and refuse to discuss your content dispute, you are part of the problem and likely to be blocked for it. Your refusal to discuss is fairly ridiculous, verifiability is fundamental here so if the problem is really so simple as you allege, it should not be hard to convince a third party of the problem even if not those you are in dispute with. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether I want or not to discuss my content is not your business. Your responsibility as an administrator is to check if the edits made in Wikipedia articles are according to Wikipedia regulations, and that's what I request here, your attention to those edits. As for if I am willing to discuss that dispute, I think if you look at the talk pages you can very well see who was the one who wrote first there regarding this dispute, who asked the other party to contribute to the talk page with his arguments and who was the one who clearly refused to get into that discussion, made personal attacks from the beginning and wrote by word "This is crystal clear, with no room for dispute...". Clicklander (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Clicklander, re: "Your responsibility as an administrator is to check if the edits made in Wikipedia articles are according to Wikipedia regulations" That isn't the role of administrators on Wikipedia. Please see dispute resolution for further steps to take if discussion on the article talk page fails to resolve the disagreement. Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Clicklander: as Schazjmd points out, content is not our responsibility as administrators. Conduct, however, is; Whether I want or not to discuss my content is absolutely our business, as communication is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee received a report relating to off-wiki coordinated editing in the Eastern European contentious topic area. Following the completion of an investigation into the report and the private evidence provided, the Committee has passed the following motion:

For long-term off-wiki coordinated editing, Sadko (talk · contribs) and Боки (talk · contribs) are indefinitely banned from participating in the same community discussions as one another, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support: Aoidh, Cabayi, Daniel, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, theleekycauldron, ToBeFree, Worm That Turned

For the Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe

NoonIcarus

• NoonIcarus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this request by NoonIcarus (fka Jamez42*) on Callanecc’s talk page for a Sockpuppet investigation of editors of political economist Francisco Rodríguez’s page is a violation of NoonIcarus’s topic ban on Latin American politics. At his recent failed attempt to lift that topic ban filed in this venue, I pointed out several times he has skirted or violated the topic ban.

Francisco Rodríguez is an economist that is of high political significance and NoonIcarus (as I show below) has long been aware of his significance in the politics of Venezuela. In reviewing Rodriguez's "The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012–2020", Richard Feinberg identifies Rodriguez as a “political economist”, who challenged the talking points of critics of Chavez and Maduro by identifying other causes for the Crisis in Venezuela:

the country’s excessively powerful executive branch (and winner-take-all politics) and the maximalist economic sanctions imposed by the first Trump administration. Rodríguez is particularly critical of radical elements within the Venezuelan opposition and diaspora for drawing the United States into “scorched earth” sanctions against Venezuela’s oil exports, which impoverished the country but failed to trigger regime change.

NoonIcarus has been well aware of Rodriguez’s political importance. On 8 June 2020, he added wikilinks to a sentence of a reference to a book co-authored by Rodriguez, Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. On 10 June 2018 he changed to the heading of the section whose first line was “Rodríguez was an early supporter of the Chávez administration.” On 20 November 2023 NoonIcarus revised “he served as the head of the economic and financial advisory of the National Assembly of Venezuela.” There are numerous other edits like these to the article and other articles that make it clear that NoonIcarus has known of Rodriguez’s significance for Venezuelan politics, and that he wanted Rodriguez’s opinion removed.[17]

The request for an SPI investigation follows a pattern of NoonIcarus challenging editors of the Rodriguez page of a COI.[18] This included a reporter who interviewed Rodriguez who repeatedly insisted he had no COI. [19] [20][21] Because of NoonIcarus’s steadfast insistence there was a COI, the reporter left Wikipedia in disgust on 1 October 2021, with the last words , “SO, I sincerely do not care anymore. Congratulations, you sucked the joy of editing some things due to your…approach on Wikipedia editing. It is a shame, Venezuelan articles need better editors. FAR BETTER.”

NoonIcarus refused to remove the COI tag when asked on 17 August 2022. The COI tag was still on the article in October 2023—a full two years later when NoonIcarus edited the article.

In August 2023, NoonIcarus followed his pattern of removing material attributed to Rodriguez that challenges the legitimacy of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela with the claim in the edit summary of a COI.[22]

NoonIcarus’s previous skirting of the topic ban; his continued preoccupation with Rodriguez and the editors of the Rodriguez page and other Rodriguez material--to the point of making multiple COI accusations over the years, even accusing a reporter of a COI who vehemently denied it and was thus driven away; and, now requesting a sock puppet investigation on the Rodriguez page on a single admin's talk page—rather than at WP:SPI…It all makes one question whether NoonIcarus is really willing to abide by community sanctions placed on him or whether he thinks they are simply at his discretion to ignore.

References

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

* Below, NoonIcarus expressed legitimate concerns about my referring to the old account name which he says caused online harassment. I understand the concern and am sorry that putting the old name in this post could cause future problems, and I will avoid it in the future. Years ago when the new name showed up, I mistakenly thought it was a different editor with similar behavior--It took a while for me to connect the two accounts. So for a while I included the fka for others who might be similarly confused. That may have been inappropriate then, and I'm sorry if I should not have done it. Indeed, enough time has passed that it is generally no longer helpful, so I did not include it in my posts about NoonIcarus in August.

In this filing, I included the fka, because the old name showed up in this diff and the current talk page of the reporter I mention above, and I again wanted to avoid confusion.

I believe the best solution to avoid any future reference to the old name is to fix this diff and any others, if they exist, that still have the old name. If an admin wants to strike the name from this post, I'm fine with that. I am also happy to review every time I used the old name like this, so it can be stricken from the record, if an admin. would find that helpful to protect NoonIcarus. Please let me know if that is the case and where I should submit those diffs to help address the potential problem.

Again, I apologize to NoonIcarus and am sorry that referencing the old name could be a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading NI's post at Callanecc's talk page as a question about whether it would be a TBAN violation to file an SPI (hence the "I want to be careful about the current topic restrictions"). Having never heard back from C, NI never did file at SPI. We generally encourage editors to ask an admin if they're not sure if a given edit will or won't violate a ban. For the record, NoonIcarus, you can't file such an SPI, and I would recommend unwatchlisting the Rodriguez article. If you have any further TBAN questions, be more conservative in how much information you include. This one would have been better as "Am I allowed to file an SPI related to accounts active at Francisco Rodríguez (economist), or would that be a violation of my TBAN?". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw edits about Rodriguez before I saw this AN (since I created the Rodriguez article in 2010, I receive notifications when links are made to it, and that is what I check first when logging on).

Rodriguez's article has a recent history of puffery and original research. In the last round, it was cleaned up by Scope creep, but the article was edited after that by the same editors blocked on the es.wikipedia. Rodriguez is now with Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR); for context (possibly related to interns editing), please see Talk:Mark Weisbrot and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp/Archive for a history of connected and paid activity.

I had not seen the August post to Callanecc's page until reading this, but had already independently noticed the problem (and more) at Rodriguez when I got a notification to his article this morning. Had I known about the socks on es.Wikipedia, I could have saved myself a lot of editing time.

Re the (old) post to Callanecc, I agree with Firefangledfeathers; NoonIcarus asked appropriately, and FFF's advice is sound. It is unfortunate that socks can continue at en.Wikipedia because the rest of us don't notice or aren't aware, and fortunate that NoonIcarus doesn't email others about these things, rather asks transparently on Wikipedia. But he can ask more briefly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

PS, I am out of time today, so unless an admin looks into blocking the socks already identified on es.Wikipedia, and examines other recent editors at Rodriguez, I'll file the SPI tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

In starting to look at accounts for the SPI, I found that this account seems to be claiming it belongs to Rodriguez himself, so there's more work to be done here. It seems he's saying he got information removed from a source after NoonIcarus used the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

And there is another problematic one, difficult to discuss per risk of OUTING. So I'm stalled on the SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Update, that is, two more problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That was another fact that I mentioned at the Spanish SPI request, so just the fact that the COI tag was removed is troublesome enough. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

NoonIcarus: there are still matters here that require attention from admins, but we don't need any more participation from you. If an admin pings you, please respond directly. Otherwise, leave it to others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with FFF. I have started to work on this, and NoonIcarus, it is better that less involved editors are looking at it and coming to their own conclusions. I have found several issues of concern, but need to take them private until I understand if OUTING applies. I will be delayed here as we are having a rough day; it would certainly be faster if I could just ask you, but it's better that you aren't involved. I hope to be able to work on this later today, unless things continue to fall apart at home. The problems seem to be bigger than those presented so far, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Continued below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Hi! Many thanks for the advice. I already have the article unlisted, which is the reason why I found out about the socks activity only a couple of months after I filed the CU request in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'll bear these words in mind in the future, best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Separately, David Tornheim has not adequately reflected his own COI wrt Venezuela on his user page,[23] and yet has been a driver in every dispute resolution discussion about NoonIcarus (sample of most recent, where I did not opine). I suggest Tornheim be cautioned about his attention to NoonIcarus' editing, as he appears overly focused on removing views that oppose his own from Venezuelan topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to ask David to stop using my old username, it's not the first time that he does. I asked for the change for a reason. It's not something that I hide or deny, even with my own concerns (instead of, say, starting editing with a different account). The redirect to the user page is still up in old comment for anyone to learn about the relation. By repeatedly using it, he's putting me in more harm's way that I already have been through so far.

I asked Callanecc as the closing admin of the decision precisely out of respect for the topic restrictions (and I have previously done so when in doubt for as little as a 19th century boat). I wanted to file a SPI request for Juanpablo1415 and Ysa4532 because a CheckUser at eswiki already confirmed that both accounts are related to each other and blocked, and the other alternative was waiting for the accounts to get stale, but I didn't take any action since I didn't get a response.

David was canvassed to the discussion preceding by TBAN and has admitted to following my edits for months now. Him ignoring or omitting the CU at the Spanish Wikipedia, particularly at a time when I have done my best to stay away from Latin American politics for over a year, suggests that this complaint is not made in good faith, that he wants to see me banned at all costs, and speaks volumes more of his own behavior than my own. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I address your concern about the old name here. No, I do not want you "banned at all costs" and have never recommended it. I haven't noticed any problems with your edits outside of Latin American politics. The two responses from Firefangledfeathers here are sufficient to address what I was getting at. I thought you should have known better not to make the request for the SPI, which included detailed facts justifying the request, to an admin. with CU privileges who could conduct the SPI. Admittedly, Callanecc was the admin. who imposed the TB and would be an appropriate admin to ask about potential edits that might violate the TB. The question about whether it was appropriate felt more like a CYA after the request and justification for the SPI that introduced the request, i.e. the post focused on "I want to request the SPI" and here is why, rather than "Is it okay for me to..." as explained by FFF. And again, I felt you should have known that it was inappropriate for you to request such an SPI on a clearly political article of Venezuela. So FFF gets at what I saw. I would just like you to be more respectful of the TB rather than your need to edit that topic area which you have been instructed to lay off of. I hope that makes sense.--David Tornheim (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Reading the page for Francisco Rodríguez, it's not apparent that he's a politician, or even a pundit. Looks to be an economist. This seems a bit overcooked to me - and surely identifying SPIs is more critical. Also, they were simply communicating with the closing admin on the topic ban to confirm whether such a submission would be okay. Also this was a month ago - really User:David Tornheim? Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  The correct link is Francisco Rodriguez (economist). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oops! Fixed link. Thank you! Nfitz (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've hit a dead-end on this, and there's little more I can do.

A. Checkusers can't do anything with stale accounts and blocking the accounts already identified on es.Wikipedia will accomplish little. New accounts can easily be created, and an SPI would likely be closed as stale and create more problems than it solves, so I've decided not to pursue that avenue. We can only hope for more eyes on articles related to CEPR, where there's a long history of SPAs (possibly related to well-paid, well-advertised internships) that disappear in short order, and need education in Wikipedia P&G.

B. The COI dialogue on both en.Wikipedia and es.Wikipedia initially revolved around this image, uploaded by Naldox as "own work". I am not familiar enough with how Commons works to comment.

C. But there were content COI red flags as well. WP:COI, applies to any close association (external role or relationship) that "could reasonably be said to undermine [a Wikipedia editor's] primary role "to further the interests of the encyclopedia" ... whose "mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally ..."

1. April 2 2019 Naldox inserts uncited text at Francisco Rodriguez (economist):

   "He is the first Venezuelan to obtain a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University", and original research, puffery, editorializing "one of the foremost experts on the Venezuelan economy. An important strand of his research" ...

   The "first to obtain" bit is personal information not based on any source I'm aware of, and the kind of content that sends up COI red flags.

2. October 1, 2021 Naldox writes at COI noticeboard:

   "I met Francisco in September 2017 in Caracas, but didn't have a chance to interview the guy. But he left mark. I believe he is one of the most intelligent people I have met."

   "Most intelligent people I have met" reinforces the question of whether this person can write neutrally about the subject.

3. October 1, 2021 Naldox writes on user talk:

   "Not a family connection nor a business relatoinship (sic). My career resumé is public at Linkedin and my media career is public in the several different news outlets I have worked for."

   and

   "... as I discussed with Wikimedia Venezuela on Twitter a few days ago ..."

   So many questions. A COI is not only a "family or business" connection. Naldox indicates he spoke with Wikimedia Venezuela on Twitter and references their public information on Linkedin. We don't have access to what was disclosed in that Twitter conversation (nor should we, probably), and any assumptions seem imprudent.

Timeline

• October 1, 2021, Naldox stops editing
• June 2022 Rodriguez first appears at archive.org at cepr.net
• October 20, 2023 Rodriguez at CEPR added to article
• November 20, 2023 Tny2023 account stating he is FRR appears
• March 2024 Camila3127 appears
• September 2024 sock Juanpablo1415 confirmed on es.Wikipedia appears
• April 2025 sock Ysa452 confirmed on es.Wikipedia appears

  Adds uncited or unsourceable information:now tagged or removed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note: Naldox and Camila127 stale on es.Wikipedia SPI

Could admins do their adminly thing to sort these two accounts re account name and whether one or both of them are Francisco Rodriguez himself:

Frrodriguezc [24]

Tny2023 [25]

That leaves the matter of what looks like David Tornheim's over focus on NoonIcarus. And repetitively using his previous account name, in spite of the dangers known; could we have the same respect that so many of us have accorded to other banned users with respect to issues of personal safety in Venezuela?

Tornheim hasn't sufficiently disclosed his own activism and COI in the Venezuelan realm, and yet has been a driving participant in assuring NoonIcarus stays topic banned. I ask that David Tornheim rethink most of what was written above, consider re-evaluating unwarranted allegations, and stop hounding NoonIcarus's edits. Bringing something this old to AN serves what purpose? Why not just inquire of Callanecc, the admin who imposed the topic ban?

We've missed the opportunity to identify socks, that were blocked months ago on other Wikipedias, and more, but I won't digress. An article that no one was watching was puffed up on en.Wikipedia by users blocked on es.Wikipedia, and no one noticed. The article was considerably edited by someone whose likely COI was not noticed or dealt with on en.Wikipedia, until it was called to attention here. And IMO NoonIcarus was right to leave the COI tags in place, right to remove an opinion article as it was used, etc.

I have unwatched most Venezuelan content since the arbcase, and CEPR-related articles as of years before that (futile with so many new accounts constantly appearing), but when I check back on a few articles, I find the POV, SYNTH and puffery growing, with no one left to address that. Please ask yourself whether the Project is being well served with respect to Venezuelan content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Found the page: WP:REALNAME re Frrodriguezc and Tny2023 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I supported NoonIcarus' topic ban last year, but decided to abstain from the appeal earlier this year and let other members of the community discusss it out. I'm commenting here because there's a lot comment above which misses the point. I'm not suggesting any further action, but the community's decision not to remove the topic ban appears correct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Babyshark2

I created a talk page thread (not edit) at the Hamas talk page to address a simple procedural error that shouldn’t be of controversy (a country is improperly colored on a map). This user not only reverted my TALK page thread, immediately insulting me, but has continued to childishly revert what should be an objective situation. A look at his editing history shows that he has a history of inflammatory attacks on other edits and overall appears to be fairly unstable. 41.189.250.10 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean User:Babysharkboss2? jellyfish ✉ 22:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified, as Special:Contributions/41.189.250.10 did not do so. jellyfish ✉ 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The IP's edit request which I denied simply read; Hamas is a TERRORIST organization not a political resistance, and I denied it on the grounds of that being a very controversial statement, and per my interpretation of WP:TERROR. They made a second thread stating: Paraguay has designated Hamas as a full terrorist org and should be designated as such without providing a source. I leave it at that (1/3 due to not being fully in-the-know on all the political guidelines, 1/3 due to being in school, and 1/3 because of an ANI rightfully filed against me). Coming back to it, they stated This isn’t arbitration. It’s a miscolored map. I believe that it seems there was a misunderstanding. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 22:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2, you reverted the IP's talk page comment 3 times (with unhelpful edit summaries) before finally explaining that extended-confirmed status is required to discuss on that CTOP article. If you'd done that on the first revert, that would have been more effective. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I created {{welcome-arbpia}} for situations like this. That looks like a legitimate edit request as there is a a map that shoes what nations have declared Hamas a terrorist organization. Should have come with a source, but I don't see it falling foul of WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I should note that the article itself, in that very same section of a edit-protected article, with sources, states verbatim that In April 2025, Paraguay expanded its designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.” My request doesn’t need sources. It’s something any second grader can read and comprehend since it’s only sentences away from the map. In fact it’s the only reason I knew that the map was wrong. 41.189.247.4 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Now that you know the rules, what is your excuse for violating the ECR restriction (here of all places)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Meh. I'm with SFR. Its a simple fact with easy sourcing (already in the article as pointed out by the IP) that could have been handled at the map page but we're blowing it up into a five alarm fire just because its an IP (not everything has to be a battle). The IP doesn't seem to have a history of this and they now aware of CTOP. I've made the request at the map talk page for a color change since I have no clue how to edit a SVG file. If it doesn't happen in a few days, I'll figure it out. I think this can be dropped at this point unless we want to make it a bigger deal than it needs to be and spend more time on this. spryde | talk 20:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

One more thing, unless Verizon Business has a point of presense in Djbouti, I don't think those two IPs are the same (ALL CAPS TERRORIST IP vs Paraguay Map IP). spryde | talk 20:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

1. There is no edit restriction on this page, so I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’m not breaking any rules “(here of all places).”

2. Even after going back and reading the template that I literally couldn’t see because I’m clearly on a mobile device, I was still well within my rights to do what I did. “You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).” My edit request can’t be disruptive, as it is literally a restatement of sourced material that I didn’t put on the page and had no say in. 41.189.250.10 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Posting here, on AN, is not making an edit request, and thus the ECR restriction, which applies to all edits...related to the topic area, broadly construed, applies, and thus you did, in fact, break it by posting about it here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:BANEX permits banned users to engage in dispute resolution at appropriate noticeboards. On what grounds should we impose a stiffer standard on IPs in this topic area? In this situation, the point of ECR is to prevent people from doing disruptive things; it's absurd to use ECR-as-applied-to-Israel-Palestinians to object to someone engaging in good-faith dispute resolution at this noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as I can see 41.189.250.10 has done nothing wrong here. User:Babysharkboss2, on the other hand, deserves at least a WP:TROUT. WaggersTALK 10:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Troutwise, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199 § Disrespectful language in reference to a murder victim, from the same day as this thread. I think my close there applies here as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that part and stand corrected - have struck my earlier comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Side note, the map has been updated. spryde | talk 13:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request

 – —Locke Cole • t • c 23:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we get, ideally, a group of willing and experienced uninvolved admins (2-3) to perform the close on this requested move tomorrow (when it's due to hit the end of its seventh day)? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AN, not here. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that WP:AN is a better forum for these kinds of requests and I think WP:ASSASSINATION should be required reading for all admins volunteering for this duty (and participants should read it as well). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that WP:ASSASSINATION is an essay, not a policy or guideline. For what it's worth, I think the guidance there is reasonable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, but WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Therefore, establishing a WP:COMMONNAME is enough to justify a move. guninvalid (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The subtle difference in that essays section is "a single commonly recognized common name" vs. policy of "the name that is most commonly used". That section is otherwise just waffle with inaccurate/misleading examples of failed RMs. The rest of the essay is good, but I wouldn't give that part much weight personally. CNC (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor Actually, the definition of the WP:COMMONNAME is single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic, not the name that is most commonly used. Both of these fragments are present in the policy section, but the first, stricter one is the actual standard that is applied, and "prefers the name that is the most commonly used" is the lead-in to the actual standard which sets criteria for "most commonly". —Alalch E. 16:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

"When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, [...]", as expressed by the additional four words before your quote, is about naming articles when COMMONNAME doesn't exist (per the extended version of the quote). It has nothing to do with defining a common name, it's an example of a topic not having an obvious one. CNC (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

No, your understanding is just wrong, I'm afraid. The definition of this Wikipedia term of art is precisely "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by independent, reliable, English-language sources". If it isn't the "single most frequently used" name it isn't the COMMONNAME. "Single" meaning: If there are three options, and option 1 is used 40% of the time (the most common name), option 2 is used 40% of the time (equally the most common name), and option 3 is used 20% of the time, the COMMONNAME does not and can not exist. If if is ostensibly the single most frequently used name, but it is not "obviously" the most frequently used, again, the COMMONAME as defined for our internal purposes does not exist. In the above example, if the distribution had been 42% (the single most common name)—38% (second most common, but the margin is small)—20%, again: option 1 is technically the single most common name, but it is not the single most common name obviously, and it is therefore not the COMMONNAME. —Alalch E. 18:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, until this RM was closed as successful anyways. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It was closed correctly, as, a little surprisingly, it appears that the use of "assassination" is so widespread in sources currently, contrarily to previous practice that we're more used to, that "Assassination of" is, in fact (truly suprisingly so), legitimately the real, Wikipedia-grade, COMMONNAME. —Alalch E. 18:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, even the most generous values don't hit the threshold you're describing unless I misunderstood your earlier comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw that earlier. They do hit: A COMMONNAME only needs to be the single most frequently used and obviously so, in relative terms, which means that in a 30%, 20%, 15%, 15%, 10% distribution, option 1 is technically is the single most common name and it is so sufficiently obviously, because the margin is pretty big. (It's not like WP:PT1, which has "more likely than all the other topics combined") —Alalch E. 18:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aydoh8, @Liz, moved. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Locke Cole. This is a more appropriate location. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Please, someone do it. To whatever end, that RFC is becoming a public headache. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don't know the protocol for this, but given there are already some collapsed sockpuppet !votes, would it be appropriate for a checkuser to do some checks to make sure multiple accounts aren't being abused? I see a lot of accounts with sub-200 edits who just showed up conveniently for this WP:RM... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it would imperative for a variety of admins and CUs to scour that discussion given the optics, but I don't know how it would work or when. Or if. It just seems like a good idea.

The consensus is more rename every day. If you look at it day over day, it seems to accelerate in normalization of the term in media and in there for support.

I suggest someone immediately protect the page afterward from moves, indefinitely.

Good luck. I need a break from that page after this weekend. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Jesus christ. Can one of you please ban from me just that page/assassination naming for a week? Three? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Details on your talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin, pinging you since you're the one who collapsed some of the !votes of sockpuppets in that discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That was one account that had been reported to SPI as an LTA. I don't think special anti-socking intervention is needed here. Closers on high-profile discussions know to apply NOTAVOTE particularly strongly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It is unusual for sure, but this happens a lot with breaking news events. A lot of fairly new editors come out of the woodwork to post their thoughts. I've done it too. I do think a checkuser could be useful, but only if you have reason to believe any particular editors are socks. Use WP:SPA for that. guninvalid (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm game. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just logging off for the night, by the way, so if this gets taken up, I'll see it tomorrow. BD2412 T 03:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Scrolling through and skimming, I'm working from the assumption that based on WP:ASSASSINATION and WP:KILLINGOFTITLE (a shortcut I just created), this should be called an assassination if and only if that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Scrolling through and skimming through the sources being brought up, it almost looks like a WP:SNOWBALL argument that "assassination" is the preferred term. So far the only linked articles I've seen that don't use the term is one from The Verge and one from WP:DAILYMAIL. guninvalid (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the tricky part is the WP:SUSPECT (BLP) concerns with naming it an assassination without having even secured a conviction. Plus I know some editors consider newspapers and news channels to be primary sources, which makes using them a bit more problematic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The thing is I've clicked through probably 2 or 3 dozen articles, including some that were originally labeled as non-"assassination of", where the wording or other context has been changed to include assassination. Hilariously, this CNN article brought up by MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫 originally called it a shooting, but that's just below a video labeled "Who is the suspect in the Charlie Kirk assassination?" There were also a couple other sources from The Independent, The Guardian, and the BBC that I did not find "assas" using ctrl+f, which tells a pretty clear story that sources outside the USA are somewhat behind on the terminology. USA sources have pretty quickly coagulated on calling it an assassination. guninvalid (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't realize that wording was changed, although I am not surprised. This was a challenge while looking for sources to begin with, as many were part of "live update" pages with frequent content changes. Regarding WP:ASSASSINATION, just noting again that this is part of an essay, not a policy or guideline. I read it as a fairly strong caution against using "assassination" unless there is a high degree of agreement in sources; I'll let an uninvolved admin evaluate this. The absence of guidance on this in P&G has been raised several times in the thread. Anyway, I agree it would be helpful to have this closed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Going through all the links I could find while skimming revision 1312003447, out of the 60-70 links given, almost all include "assassination" either in the URL, the title, or somewhere in the article. I did not explicitly look for "shooting" or "killing" since I was mostly trying to rule-out "assassination" as opposed to supporting another title. Of these articles, I was only able to find The Verge, The Guardian, and The Independent not using the term. I also found this this NYT article that I can't currently access and can't confirm its wording, even with ctrl+f. The Guardian calls it a shooting and The Verge calls it a killing, and the Independent has referred to it as an assassination in several other articles. All three of these articles were from September 12. With all this, and the fact that AP News has "CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION" as one broad category along the top of the page, I think it's fair that the WP:COMMONNAME cannot exclude "assassination". The jury is out on whether "assassination" or "shooting" could be "co-COMMONNAME" or something along those lines, but if I were closing this, I would close it in favor of assassination without prejudice for a future "shooting of" RM. guninvalid (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my personal preference would be to keep it as "Killing of". But it seems that WP:COMMONNAME disagrees with me. :( guninvalid (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Also FWIW, the close is currently underway by BD2412. Why the summary wasn't applied before closing the discussion, and moving the pages, I will never understand. But I hope the summary will be a good one. CNC (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The move was probably a good one to at least close the discussion ahead of a proper closing, since it's very unlikely anyone could seriously challenge this close this late into the cycle. But I can and will still whinge about the result. Grumble grumble... guninvalid (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll complain if the close doesn't summarise the discussion though. CNC (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be funny if I had just closed as something like "per consensus", then. BD2412 T 16:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If the basic idea is that it needs to be moved, can't we just move the damn thing now and have people write the collaborative essay later? jp×g🗯️ 05:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

We can wait 6 more hours so that it's been a week. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

While I agree editors can collaborate and write a postmortem style essay about it later, also agree with O.N.R. to give it a few hours. And to note what guninvalid said, I also see pretty clear consensus and the sourcing to support these policy-driven !votes, as roughly 2:1 3:2 even with some down-weighting (I didn't vote in the RM as am neutral, but am otherwise involved in the topic btw). That's not to say it doesn't need an experienced closer with a decent summary, just not convinced this is panel-worthy as being a tight call. If it were, we wouldn't talking about closing it already, but instead waiting a bit longer for consensus. CNC (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on my past experience and my estimate of the current political situation, I would only recommend users deal with the issue if they are perfectly anonymized (one can not guess the connection to their real name, and the connection has never been provided in the past). We know that even this is unfortunately insufficient but at least puts higher barriers for real-life harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion as moved. Based on the above, it appears that the consensus in this discussion was that a panel close was not necessary for the RM. BD2412 T 16:37, 18 September 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.

Accusation of Conflict of Interest

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 was accused by Onel5969 of having a Conflict of Interest regarding an article I wrote entitled Drex Lee. I photographed the subject Drex Lee with his permission at the 2025 Bild Expo Presented by B&H Photo after his talk along with 177 other photos I contributed to wikimedia. I noticed that there was no article regarding the subject Drex Lee. I wrote the article using sources from the internet and following the style of other notable influencer wikipedia pages. I do not personally know Drex Lee nor do I understand the Accusation of Conflict of Interest with the subject. Please Advise? Tzim78 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - have responded on my talk page. Was in the process of responding before receiving this notification.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tzim78: please point to where you were accused. All I could find is the draftification notice on your talk page, which apparently had the 'you may have COI' option ticked. That's hardly an accusation; it's barely an enquiry. If you have no COI, then you simply need to state that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 19 September 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.

Reliable source review

This is not really an "incident" or dispute, more of a general inquiry, so I am posting it here. Please let me know if this query should be posted elsewhere. Please see the discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Sswonk. User:TechnoSquirrel69 is unsure about the reliability of Chapter 16. Can an administrator please check and respond? Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

(No need for the talk page message, I'm aware of this.) The autopatrolled requests page is currently fairly backlogged, so I would expect there'll be some time before someone's able to respond to your request, Sswonk. That being said, if any administrator here would like to help out with the backlog, that would be appreciated. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way non-admins can help with the WP:RFPERM backlog? I feel as though this is one area where non-admins might not be able to help as much without getting in the way of admins. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Relativity, non-admins who have particular experience in certain perms can be helpful - for example, NPPers frequently nominate other editors for autopatrolled and respond to those requests with endorsements or concerns. But less is more. And for many of the perms, no, there's not a lot that non-admins can usefully do. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sswonk: The best venue to ask a source reliability question and find consensus for it would be the reliable sources noticeboard. Left guide (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Political smearing

Trolls gonna troll The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 report a WIKE article that contains a lot of deliberate smearing of communist countries and China, deliberately belittling China, insulting China's intelligence, and revealing a strong political consciousness that the United States is above all countries. This article with a strong smearing of communist countries is uncomfortable and I hope it can be taken down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 151.243.22.36 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIV isn't even an article... 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2034:5A78:91C5:608A (talk) 07:31, 19 September 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's block evasion

Hello, @Johannnes89 recently blocked IP 187.36.171.230 on 16 Aug 2025, however IP evading this block with same pattern of behavior using open proxy. These are latest block evasions by:

• 191.246.142.229 4 reverts 1 article all 19 Sep '25
• 191.57.19.112
• 179.241.241.72
• 2804:388:80A2:A4FE:1866:4B9B:2D5C:E95 4 rv on 4 different articles all 19 Sep '25
• 2804:388:A036:4FCE:5879:439:2135:F4F7

following are from last couple of hours (also note how they use edit-summary with "Rv vandalism" explanation):

• 1) Čajniće Gospel (19 Sep '25)
• 2) Dubrovnik Prayer Book (19 Sep '25)
• 3) Hval's Codex (19 Sep '25)
• 4) Gospel of St. Nicholas (19 Sep '25)

On editing article Gospel of St. Nicholas of Rošci they used both IP addresses: 1 and 2

On Hval's Codex they edited from 191.57.19.112, 2804:388:80A2:A4FE:1866:4B9B:2D5C:E95, 179.241.241.72, and 187.36.171.230

They used different IP in recent weeks to make same or related reverts and unrefed contributions, which were at times undone by others but reverted by IP again, etc. If necessary, I will produce additional links with different earlier IP edits. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Santasa99, is it just these two articles that are affected? Or can we expect more? -- asilvering (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly there are more articles where they make changes, regardles of sources, where they operate on personal POV, even dismising outright established academic stance based on their view on subjects etc. I've only chosen these few diffs from yesterday and today (depending on time zone), just to illustrate what's going on. Also, it's very possible that there are more IP addresses they using. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of these diffs are quite stale, for example, 2804:388:A036:4FCE:5879:439:2135:F4F7 has made only 1 edit and that was in May 2022! What is your basis for connecting all of these IP accounts and asserting they are the same editor? It might be better for you to take this to WP:SPI although I think they might reject these claims based on the ages of the diffs. You'll need more evidence than what you have here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

They are not stale, they are dynamic; they come with 2804:388:A036:4FCE:5879:439:2135:F4F7 and after several contributions across the several days or weeks they interchngably use several Ips. The editor is activ constantly, evading block by using these different IPs. They edit from Brazil in very specific area; they almost exclusively edit on Bosnian history and culture from the Serbian nationalist stand point - how many Brazilians are interested that much in this topic, let a lone with the knack for very specific nacionalist tropes I can't tell but I would bet my life on this. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, these diffs above are just one from each of just few selected articles - they made dozens of reverts across the five or six articles with unacaptable edit-summaries just in couple of hours last night. Hopefully, it doesn't pays off to be anonymous editor editing from open proxy dynamic IPs, making a mess in the process. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Santasa99, I don't see any reason to believe that these IPs are open proxies. They're all the same network, being used over time by what appears to be a single person, who is not blocked. So this isn't block evasion of any kind as far as I can tell. My advice is to try to engage with the editor on the article talk pages and go through the WP:DR stages as normal. -- asilvering (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a block imposed on 16 Aug 2025 on the editor who was using the following IP : 187.36.171.230; after that IP got blocked, the editor continues to edit using these other IP addresses. It is not first time that I encountered this problem, but I would appreciate blocking admin to shed some light on circumstances. Other editors who confronted this IP way of contributing and interacting all fled, I am not sure this kind of persistant abuse can be engaged with.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a proxy block - it's intended to block an IP, not a particular editor. If a proxy block also happens to shut up a particularly annoying vandal, so much the better, but that's not a block aimed at a specific person. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I am all out of ideas. The editor was involved in edit-warring with about anyone. Their explanations are unacceptable use of "vandalism" label, or outright dismissal of RS already in article with hash personal POV tone and labels, they're using refs without page No. or misinterpreting its content, refing statements with refs that either do not talk about stated info or are misinterpreted, and so on. I will try to file a report on 3RR (maybe SPI for using multiple IP addresses), but even that is complication as they use two or more IP addresses in 3RR. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Santasa99, there's no need to file an SPI here. The editor does not appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry. If they are edit-warring, vandalising, etc, by all means report them to the relevant noticeboards when that arises. But I am not seeing any attempts at talk page discussion on Dubrovnik Prayer Book, for example, and that ought to happen first. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice - SPI unwarranted. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, actually, it appears that there is another IP block before this one that I brought here, this one User contributions for 187.36.175.237 - Wikipedia, and that both are based on editor's way of contributing, per User:Ohnoitsjamie the reason was Persistent addition of unsourced content: appears to be vandalism ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

That person edits about football. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Aha, ok. I am starting to see what you mean - not only person editing through that IP after all. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration committee 2025 election

Nominations for the 2025 arbitration committee election will start in just over a month. Given the significant commitment required to be an arbitrator, it's a good time to start thinking about candidates and the skills needed for the committee to be effective. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Massive RFPP backlog

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's 146 requests at WP:RFPP right now so that could probably benefit from greater admin attention. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

110 of those are requests by a single user regarding WP:ECRCASTE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

EarthDude (et al.), it is easier for everyone involved if you just make a list in a user subpage instead of individual nominations for such a high volume. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd also add that WP:CT/SA stipulates that pre-emptive protection of caste articles may be implemented when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption. So major political parties? Sure, reasonable belief exists. Minor defunct parties which receive no edits like Sarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal? Not so much. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Curbon7 The 3rd point simply states "WP:GSCASTE[a] is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction." It is a separate 5th point which states "Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE[a] when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption." From the way I see it, and the way it is framed, all GSCASTE articles have to be indef extended confirmed protected, and in addition to that, if admins feel so, they can temporarily full protect an article as a pre-emptive measure against disruption. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

GSCASTE articles don't have to be protected EC, but the 'can be if there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption. Currently ARBPIA articles are protected by default, but once my current motion wraps up unifying the language to the ARBIPA language is on my docket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Hmm, I guess I had misinterpreted the arbitration. I will remove the RFPP entries that I had added which have not been disrupted in the past. Thanks for clarifying it for me. But I do personally think that CT/SA arbitration should be expanded so that all articles that fall under GSCASTE have to be, by default, indef EC. There's just way too much disruptive editing, ideological canvassed editing, vandalism, sock puppetry, etc., over there. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a very limited amount of admin labor available and using it to protect articles that haven't been disrupted and will likely never be disrupted isn't a good use of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, so as I said, I will be removing entries that have not been disrupted in the past. I don't think it will make that big a difference though considering that the majority of the requests I had filed were of CT/SA GSCASTE articles that have been disrupted in the past. I just personally believe that the restrictions set in place for Indian military history related topics, broadly construed, wherein all articles have to be, by default indef EC. Ideally such restrictions should also be put in place for GSCASTE. The issue of protecting articles that will never be disrupted is far less so than the current issue of hundreds of articles that are indeed regularly disrupted but where no protection or mitigation takes place. For instance, what prompted me to file all these requests was the realization that the article on the Aam Aadmi Party, one of India's biggest political parties, was vandalized with severe POV and UNDUE additions. The vandalized version stayed in place for several days. When I looked into it further, the absolute vast majority of Indian political party articles had been regularly disrupted but had no protection or action. I simply don't think preemptive protection is enough for this topic. Anyhow, I will be staying within the bounds of the current arbitration. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude, the idea isn't just "has been disrupted in the past". That's true of a great many articles. Is there reason to believe an article will be disrupted imminently? That is, an upcoming election, an ongoing slow-motion edit war, a recent visit from a vandal who will probably return, etc. Then, by all means, report. But if there isn't actually anything currently going wrong, admin time is better spent doing something else that's actually on fire. -- asilvering (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: So, was the intent of PIA5 not to preemptively protect all those pages by default? Because I thought that was the intent of the measure. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It was, I believe. IPA and PIA have different wordings, and I think that using admin time to protect hundreds of articles that don't need it isn't a wise use of the effort. I think allowing for preemptive protection is sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of right after WP:ARBPIA5 closed near the end of January, there were some admins doing mass protections in that topic area as illustrated in the January and February AE logs. Is there some tool or trick that allows these types of actions to happen easily? Left guide (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide Maybe we could make lists or categories of articles that fall under this arbitration protection, so that RFPP doesn't get so cluttered? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle for protection, and we're working on making the logging less shitty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There is not. Which is why it's so annoying when someone clogs up RFPP with dozens or hundreds at a time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

RFPP needs a single click responder, rather than the response tool that requires opening the editing window and selecting from a huge dropdown, a-la User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. That, combined with not having to log AE protections, should cut a lot of the needless work out of that process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I misread that as "RFPP has a single click responder", and the thousand-yard stare I just stared...

Hey @Daniel Quinlan I hear you're bored after optimizing the shit out of wikiblame - time to write a script for yourself for once? -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I've cleared the requests (except the declined ones) from RFPPI. We're discussing at User talk:EarthDude#Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase and any AE protection actions will be logged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 19 September 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.

A related question

Related to the above (thus a subsection) - when ECPing a page that is within a CT that is under mandatory, ARBCOM-imposed ECR, is it still a requirement (right now, at least) to note the protection in the log, given it is (functionally) a pro forma action? Because a number of Indian military history related pages have been ECP'd (I've done a few) and it just occured to me that I don't think they were logged. Should I go back and note them there? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping ScottishFinnishRadish because they're much more likely to know how to answer this than I am. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you have to log. Yes, this is very annoying. Hence the current motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Gotta log, dawg. Embrace the slog. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Amusingly, looking back, it turns out I hadn't ECP'd any articles - just created editnotices mentioning the CT ECR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Request deletion of multiple empty redirect talk pages

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.

---

Per Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 72#How to request deletion of multiple empty redirect talk pages? I am taking this to WP:AN.

IP 88.251.82.151 (Special:Contributions/88.251.82.151) created 19 blank talk pages of redirects, stopping when told that this was pointless. They no doubt thought that they were being helpful and should not be sanctioned. I would like to request deletion of these pages.

Please let me know if there was a way I could have requested a speedy deletion using the normal procedure. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In CSD circles, we regularly delete orphaned talk pages as CSD G8. Frequently editors who are not autoconfirmed or who are IP accounts create new articles on orphaned Talk pages since they are not able to create pages in main space. If they are an actual draft article, they are moved to Draft space, but if it's gibberish, which is much of the time, they are just deleted. If these are talk pages for existing redirect pages, no, they are not needed but I don't see any reason to delete them either. I mean, we have tens of thousands of unused Category talk pages that will never be used for any discussions but we just let them be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Mass delete? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• My best guess is that deleting them is worse than keeping them. We still have to have the histories, etc, even if deleted, so it seems just as pointless to delete them as to create them. They aren't likely to get used, and creating redirects out of them seems pointless as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis Brown. No benefit was achieved by creating them, but no benefit would be achieved by deleting them either. On balance it's marginally better to just leave them, to avoid unnecessarily complicating the editing history. JBW (talk) 20:12, 20 September 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.

Potential WP:OWN / WP:SOAP issues on articles related to Mikron

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.

---

Mikron Group appears to be a russian semiconductor manufacturer. Various IP editors were making large to very large (1000 - 5000 Bytes) changes to its page and related pages (Semiconductor device fabrication, and somehow Avionics)

IPs:

2001:318:E011:C3:70AD:BE80:E388:B9A ⋅ 2001:318:e011:c3:5196:c895:9efc:616 ⋅ 2001:318:e011:c3:d80b:98c6:80ff:10ee ⋅ 2001:318:E011:C3:DC51:A909:D20:47D8 ⋅ 2601:58c:4303:16e0:75b8:82cc:dddd:12a0

Diffs: (Partial)

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Extra note: from some of these IPs' edit warring summary is "please contact us at zeroseo@gmail.com", seemed like some sort of SEO service providers. Might be worth an IP range block.

Edit 13:09: Strike through Avionics; not related to the subject (Mikron).

Edit 13:19: Added 5th IP

Edit 15:22: I did a global contribution search for this IP range and the pattern goes back to December 2024. All their contributions to English- and Simple-WP uses the same style of edit summary, (by starting with "※",) and most of them are external link / see-also spams, links are often a video on rutube. Diffs were merged into the main thread and labelled 7-13.

Their edits to SimpleWiki in December 2024 also got reverted immediately - AB

We might want to IP block the 2001:318:E011:C3/64 range.

海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 15:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't post this to AN/I because it seemed quite under control and so far almost all added pufferies were reverted quite swiftly. This is more of just a nuisance than an incident. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 12:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I reverted all of the aforementioned edits (if they haven't been reverted yet). 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 15:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• This is actually a much bigger problem than the account above suggests. I've blocked 2001:318:e011:c3::/64, but looking further into the history I found that this is a long-term spammer, who has been active since at least as far back as 2017, when they were using the range 2001:318:E011:F:0:0:0:0/64, which has been blocked 5 times. Over the years they have spammed on numerous subjects, of which Mikron Group just happens to be the latest. This will need a good deal more checking, to see whether larger range blocks would be appropriate. It may also be worth looking for further spam to revert, but my guess is that there will be a huge amount of it, much of it buried in editing history over many years and many articles, so it may be impracticable to remove most of it.
• The spammer's focus is heavily on Russian topics, but the IP addresses are from a Japanese company, so I don't know what that's about. I see they have also edited Japanese, Russian, and Simple Wikipedias. JBW (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• I have now blocked 2001:318:E011:0:0:0:0:0/56, which covers both of the ranges I mentioned. I haven't found any edits ever in that range which look as though they weren't by this person, so there is virtually no risk of collateral damage. I also haven't seen any edits outside that range which look as though they were by this person, but of course I may have missed some. 2601:58C:4303:16E0:75B8:82CC:DDDD:12A0, also mentioned above, doesn't seem related at all. JBW (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

JBW, thanks for spending the time diving into this mess. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 September 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.

Viceskeeni2

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 the brief period of time since Viceskeeni2's topic ban has been revoked, this user has already made some very eyebrow raising edits that I wanted to bring to your attention.

Baku Victory Parade of 2020 - Viceskeeni2 removed this background information from the lead, which may have had an argument (though one not discussed), but instead of moving it to the body Viceskeeni2 completely erased this information.

Second Nagorno-Karabakh War - IN addition to adding Wagner Group with dubious sources and no discussion, this violates MOS:IBP because Wagner is not mentioned anywhere in the article outside the infobox.

Azerbaijanis - Several POV pushing additions, including a massacre linked to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia that was deleted here for having no reliable sources.

Military Trophy Park (Baku) - removing mannequin photos which most of the article's notability and text is referring to.

Qarabağ Khankendi - Adds the club being forced to leave during the war without any source.

First Nagorno-Karabakh War - Another IBP violation, apparently felt Soviet Armenia should be included if Soviet Azerbaijan is, despite the latter being supported by the article while the former is not.

Sisian - Adding an Azerbaijani name without discussion, something that has been reverted many times since 2007 for lack of notability. And assuming Viceskeeni2 is the same person as Viceskeeni, this would be continued edit warring from a previously reverted edit back in February 2024.

There are also some incidents of WP:HOUNDING me personally:

Aşağı Çaylı - Restoring the changes of a non-extended confirmed user that I previously reverted, on a small article that Viceskeeni2 has never edited before.

Vitaly Balasanyan - Another example of restoring changes of a non-extended confirmed user that I previously reverted. Was Viceskeeni2 planning to revert these changes as soon as getting unbanned? Vanezi (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This looks like it belongs at WP:AE per WP:ARBAA. guninvalid (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m on mobile right now because of travels and it was inconvenient to post in AE. Is it really necessary? I can ping all the admins who commented in the recent AE appeal of the user, if this works. Vanezi (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill @Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq @Guerillero. Vanezi (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I am preparing my defense to these allegations. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you would both do well to discuss things on talk pages rather than edit articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read the AE appeal [26]. This user was given another chance at editing a contentious topic area with the condition that disruptive editing will likely reinstate the topic ban, per admin discussion. And some obvious bad faith editing like just plain and simple hounding of months old edits the same day one was unbanned isn’t supposed to be reasoned with on talk, even if we ignore the context of their appeal. Vanezi (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, I am preparing my response right now. I have already respinded to one of the 2 allegations, now I'm working on responding to you so I'm asking you to please not take things out of context and try to convince admins to swiftly ban me again. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have my defense ready against these allegations, however it is almost 8,000 characters long and I do not really have any way to shorten the text due to the vast amount of information it contains, that I have prepared to really defend myself from this, so I don't know whether to send it in or wait, especially because this is the Adminstrators board. I'll wait for the adminstrators response first. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

No valid defence takes anything like 8,000 characters. Several hundred, maybe 1,000 at the most. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I referenced every single thing Vanezi has noted and gave extra examples, which is why it's so long. If you want to, I can send it here or somewhere else where you or someone else can review it and please correct my mistakes. Thank you for your feedback. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to review it if it's almost 8,000 characters long. Maybe you'll find some mug volunteer who will. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Right now, Vanezi's analysis is sitting on this page uncontested. Your overlong response at your own talk page is probably not going to be reviewed. Please respond with brevity here, Viceskeeni2. There's no word limit here (hence our preference for AE), but hiding your points in impenetrably long text is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm right now trying to shorten my text. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• The parade: Vanezi said it, I did: Removing the references had an argument. I clearly stated that Statements that have almost nothing to do with the parade & don't belong in the introduction, especially when one of them was recorded almost one year later. The statements in the parade that led Pashinyan to criticize it are enough. What I removed followed Aliyev saying something controversial about Armenia, with Pashinyan criticizing it. That part is fine & absolutely fits in there because it is part of the military parade proper. But what followed that belongs in e.g. Azerbaijani irredentism, but NOT the INTRODUCTION of a parade, where the part about the statements was longer than about the parade itself. Ironically, one reference by Aliyev is from August 2021, 9 months after the parade. These would fit into a part that focuses on the controversy, but not the introduction as they have minimally something to do with the parade.
• Second war: I think I might've mixed 2 pages up or similar, as I don't recall the page not referencing Wagner. My edit was of WP:GOODFAITH, as I added further info to the page, but when I noticed now that it doesn't reference Wagner, I thank Vanezi for the feedback & immediately removed Wagner from the infobox. [27]
• Template:Azerbaijanis: I didn't POV-push here as I only added info to the page e.g. diaspora/lamguage, but also to persecution. The added articles, besides Bashlibel which I removed now as I didn't know it'd been deleted before, are all sourced English pages & I seriously do not know what Vanezi means by saying I apparently POV-pushed, as I only expanded the category (not in any way at all forbidden, besides ofc Bashlibel). They also conveniently left out me editing Template:Armenians, adding info & events of persecution, showing I only expanded pages but didn't POV-push.
• Military Trophy Park: Vanezi again conveniently left out my reasoning for the pics to be removed with Removed 2 of 3 pictures of wax mannequins that were very obviously the focus here instead of the park itself. I removed 2 of 3 pics, letting one there & respectfully explaining that I believe it should absolutely be there with but left one because it is important to keep it there. I also replaced a pic of trenches in the part focusing on mannequins with a pic of the mannequins [28]. If anyone doesn't get it: I ABSOLUTELY CONDEMN Azerbaijan showcasing the figures, that were later removed when it realized it's dumb. Besides, I did good contribs. to the page, adding 8 pics, with an image collage about a seize vehicle.
• Khankendi FK: It's common sense that the club was expelled from the town they founded their club in, as they play in another city right now, due to a war where people of that country were expelled from that region. If the edit's original research, which I don't get how, I'll immediately remove it.
• First war: That edit was later reverted with a proper explanation, unlike what AntonSamuel did. I double-checked the page & realized that ArmSSR was already referenced, which's why I didn't resist the revert but accepted doing a mistake.
• Sisian: The old edit Vanezi referenced was removed due to there not being a SINGLE SOURCE for the edit, understandably. But here, I took 3 sources referencing the name & change in 1935/40, with one even being Armenian. I also didn't randomly add it at the top, but properly added it in Etymology, where it belongs as Garakilsa is the Azerbaijani name for Sisian & was the official name until 1940 (sourced btw). Had I done POV-pushing/disruptive editing, I would've e.g. not added fbaf fhe city was renamed to Sisian, recognizing that the original name's Sisian + on AzWiki, I removed the name Garakilsa, portrayed there as the official name, & fixed the mistake [29].
• "Hounding": I didn't harass Vanezi or explicitly edited pages they edited. The 2 articles came in my way, like Aşağı Çaylı, I noticed it had info missing/wrong info & added new/removed old info. Had I harassed them I would've done more than this, looking at their contribs having removed a lot of sourced info due to GS/AA, understandably, & instead reverted their edits, which I didn't. The fact that him & me have edited the same page or that it's a small page I have "never edited" doesn't make sense, as we have edited a lot of same pages + there are tons of small pages I'll be editing in the future, so I don't get how this makes sense + Aşağı Çaylı is a small page too.
• WP:HOUNDING against me: Vanezi & AntonSamuel randomly immediately reporting me at the same time, with the same expectation & reasoning + both being interested in Armenia/Artsakh + that Vanezi tried multiple reports to get me blocked [30] + when they hadn't edited in one month, then randomly appeared for their 3rd edit to be complaining about me, to prevent my unblocking, then disappearing & now AGAIN appearing only to complain & try to get me blocked (literally: isn’t supposed to be reasoned with on talk, saying that there is no need for any talk) after failed attempts, adds to the suspicion that they're trying to get me blocked again as they immediately complain when I edit. Thank you for reading this, name me my mistakes pls so I fix them. My edits were WP:GOODFAITH. I tried to shorten the response as much as I could. @Rosguill @Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq @Guerillero

Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers will you or any other admin be reviewing this comment? May I respond if so? Vanezi (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I do plan on reviewing soon. There are no special rules about participation here, so respond as you like. Briefer is better. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Also I wanted to add to the POV-pushing accusations that I just checked the Azerbaijani page for Sisian again and removed another false information about an alleged "Albanian church" there.[31] Viceskeeni2 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Focus on the matter at hand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Vanezi: Before taking the time to assess whether certain edits are overdone or hounding and so on, could we please first focus on any edits which are wrong in some sense. For example, are any edits adding verifiably incorrect information, or adding clear WP:NPOV or WP:RS violations? If any wrong edits have occurred since 18:07, 17 September 2025 when the "TBAN revoked" message was delivered, please select the most egregious and briefly explain that. That would be more digestible. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to go point by point because there is rebuttal to the claims the user made, but it’ll just encourage the long wall of texts. I’ll keep it very brief: the most objectively wrong edits are adding the Wagner Group as a belligerent on Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (which has been thoroughly debunked and was never supported by reliable sources) and linking to the "Bashlibel massacre" on the Azeri Wiki (half the sources are YouTube videos) after the English article was deleted for being a hoax. Granted the user has self reverted these, I don’t think self-reverting is some get out of jail free card especially considering that they were given a short WP:ROPE at AE.

Their blatant denial of obvious things here such as the hounding is another issue that raises eyebrows. I can elaborate if asked, but I’ll keep it brief now as requested. Vanezi (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Viceskeeni2, I'm interested in particular in your response about the Wagner issue. Your explanation above, "I think I might've mixed 2 pages up or similar, as I don't recall the page not referencing Wagner", does not make sense to me. What circumstances led you to add Wagner and the associated sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that I have either mixed up a page, where Wagner was referenced, with this page, which is why I inserted them in the infobox, OR that the page used to reference the Wagner Group, but that it was removed at some time, which is why I now also removed Wagner from the infobox after being informed that the page doesn't even reference them at all. What led me to adding them is that when I went through translations of the page, some had Wagner in the infobox, which is why I wondered "why doesn't English?" and, after looking further into sources referencing Wagner, added them with good faith that I was adding information about Wagner, not knowing that it wasn't even in the article. I apologize for making the mistake of adding Wagner and promsie to look further and double check sources and/or the page I'm editing in the future, so that I don't repeat this kind of mistake. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This is from yesterday, so it's odd to me that you aren't able to recall. Can you use your browser history? Which other language version did you take from? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I remember that before either this page or a page related to the second war referenced the Wagner Group, including the Wagner Group article itself where it mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh in their infobox, but I'm not exactly sure which one it was. The translations I had looked at was specifically the German one, where it referenced Wagner in an infobox, which is why I afterwards looked deeper into the material, especially from this page. Looking at my browser history on my phone (which is where I made the edits) the pages I took informations from was the page with the allegations (referenced before), Battle of Shusha, Wagner Group itself, some Russians translations and the specific German translation. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to add that at the start I mean with page or page related to the war were German articles mostly, not English, which is probably where the confusion comes from. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

When we unbanned Viceskeeni2 just two days ago, we said "conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return". My eyebrow is raised. I'm not buying the explanation about the hounding edits. I really don't like that Viceskeeni2 took sources from an "Allegations" page and—without independently verifying what is in the sources—used them for a wikivoice statement in the main war article. The other diffs show a pattern of unsourced edits and changes that are either POV-pushing or careless. Either way, we were expecting Viceskeeni2's best behavior, and this isn't good enough. I've indefinitely topic banned Viceskeeni2 from Armenia/Azerbaijan topics and site-blocked them for a month, both as arbitration enforcement actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 20 September 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 Aleyamma38

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.

---

• Aleyamma38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• UTRS appeal #106359
• ANI thread that resulted in Boomerang
• Prior ANI
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aleyamma38/Archive
• User_talk:Aleyamma38#Unblock Request

Posting request carried over from user talk:

It's been almost five years and at that time I was facing mental health issues (I am a schizophrenia patient and lot of the WP:BATTLE happened because of my tendency to doubt on people) which is why I caused all the nuisance. Please unblock me now because now I have been cured thanks to medications. I admit I had evaded block twice but that was because I thought this account will not be unblocked and I will not be able to edit wikipedia but recently one of my friends in wikipedia said that this account can be unblocked and I can start using Wikipedia once again. So can you please unblock me, if you check my edit history other than WP:BATTLE/WP:IDHT, I have mostly done constructive edits.carred over by --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support giving them another chance, as they're taken steps that should mitigate the behavior they were CBANned for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  If it's a health issue @SarekOfVulcan, it seem a bit callous to call it a behaviour, to me. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Irrespective of the cause, it was behavior that led to the initial ban. The editor is promising better behavior now to get unbanned. It isn't callous, it is factual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, Dennis. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Sarek of Vulcan. Time has passed to allow personal growth and recovery.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC) saddened. post close. meh---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support I'm glad that you are doing well. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support You have taken steps to prevent that happening again and enough time has passed. Glad to hear you are doing better. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia needs to improve the way it deals with health issues. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support The incident they were banned for was five years ago, and the circumstances that led to the ban are unlikely to recur, so let's give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm disappointed about the socking. Aleyamma, please come back in six months to a year without doing any more socking, and I'll be happy to support unbanning. Until then, I must give a reluctant oppose. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. We need to give a second chance. Hope they come out from difficult health issues. Fade258 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose for now as per CU concerns below. Wait at least six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Fade258 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support, it was a long time ago and evidently much has changed since, for the better. On a personal note, I empathise hugely, and wish them well now and in the future. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support, given the user's response to my question on their talk page. They note they aren't actually cured, but their mental health crisis is under long-term control. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Switch to Oppose, given the CU concerns below. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• This is a CheckUser block. Has any CheckUser actually done the honors? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Please see Yamla's comment at UTRS appeal #106359 Perhaps now would be a good time for a recheck. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  {{checkuser needed}} I'm unsure here. I cannot immediately clear this from a CU perspective and have some concerns. I'd like another CU to take a look. I'll also note Aleyamma38 has not yet answered the question, "Please list your other accounts and when you must recently evaded your block." --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  A general note that socking in Asian television is unfortunately normal.

  My specific notes regarding the user's IP:

  1. I can see why Yamla is being cautious.
  2. At the same time in late July as there were multiple attempts to login to Aleyamma38's account, there was also an attempt to login to Commonedits (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The controller of one is possibly-tending-likely to be the controller of the other. The reason for blocking Commonedits tracks with this user, and so does the topic area. The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creativitylove, where there has been activity since/including 2024.
  3. There is a UA match to the user from late June in the topic area that I can't discuss further.
  4. Here are additional blocked names on that IP that have been editing in the topic area that Aleyamma38 is associated with:
     • Uylhm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
     • Flurysteabags (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
     • Split banana sundae (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
     Flury and Split are confirmed to each other. Flurys' denial of being Jha could make that editor this one instead, and it would be consistent with this story from Aleyamma38.
  5. There are two unrelated accounts and two unlikely accounts associated with this IP. The rest are noted above.

  All in all, I tend toward the belief that the Aleyamma38 has been socking at least these past 3 months. I'd put it at  Likely personally. My general note above still stands as a point of caution.

  I've deactivated the request for CU. @Yamla: please feel free to reactivate if something in what I've said doesn't jive to you and you can get a 3O on it. Izno (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've also pulled some of this data onto CU wiki. Izno (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks very much, Izno. You are definitely seeing what I'm seeing. Frankly, for those without CU glasses, Izno is being somewhat kind in his write-up above. Given the likelihood of recent block evasion and given Aleyamma38's refusal to answer my question about their list of accounts, I have sadly changed my vote, above, to oppose unblocking. I do not believe their answer that they last evaded in July, 2024, is accurate. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Disappointing. I guess that blows this request out of the water, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  And with a tiny bit more research, the relation between Creativitylove and Aleyammarockz was established in February and nobody retagged the relevant accounts. Izno (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Having read their unblock requests and their responses, I see no reason not to give another chance. Lynch44 23:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose. Lynch44 16:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support giving one more chance. Lorstaking (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. My initial instinct was to support per all the above supports. I have first-hand experience of what it is like editing with a mental illness, but believe that everyone should be held to the same behavioral standards. CU evidence strongly suggests recent block evasion and failure to be open with us, so I have to oppose. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose apparent ongoing socking. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose concur with other CU findings. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with the CU findings above. I have no doubt that the same person who eventually logged into the Aleyamma38 account was the same person who attempted to log into the Commonedits account. That means that either (a) they are that same person, and have not disclosed as much, or (b) they have attempted to hack someone else's account. I find the former much more likely (why would a third party attempt to hack a blocked account?), but either way, I can't support an unblock in these circumstances. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, sympathetic to mental health and glad they've found relief. However socking and lying about it is disruptive and grounds for not lifting the block. Star Mississippi 16:01, 21 September 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.

RfC closure review request at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#RfC: Should the name of the indicted suspect be included in the article?

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 Austin_Metcalf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 00:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [32]

Reasoning: I'd like to thank Beland for closing this discussion however I would like to raise some points and supervote concerns. I do not see how the close is an accurate summarization of the discussion or even an appropriate application of WP:BLP policy.

• Beland didn't give any policy based rationale besides saying that editors considered it (which is circular reasoning). Naturally every BLP dispute has consideration but that doesn't change the burden being on concretely demonstrating the value gained by including the name, which was not demonstrated.
• Beland did vaguely mention the suspect's privacy not being necessary due to the name being in sources, however this is not how WP:BLP policy works. For suspects not convicted of crimes, WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources and defaults to exclusion. (Not to mention that Wikipedia is not news, and has significantly higher standards than American news media, which is why WP:BLP policy exists for these cases).
• Beland did not seem to consider WP:BLPNAME which also say that news sources should not be factored into the decision to include the name of a non-notable individual.
• Even aside from these points, after reading the discussion it is not clear that there was a consensus at all.

A few other editors and myself raised these points (among others) with Beland on his talkpage, and Beland made an appeal to the principles of event based journalism as justification, however Wikipedia is not news.

Closer (Beland)

I have already responded to most of the substance of the complaints above at User talk:Beland#Close Challenge; I will not repeat all that here but just respond to what is new. Yes, this article is not news journalism, but that hardly seems like a good reason for assuming that the "who?" part of the Five Ws is inherently uninteresting and unencyclopedic. This was one aspect where I did consider the strength of the arguments made: the idea that the identity of the perpetrator or credibly alleged and indicted perpetrator of a crime is unencyclopic in an article about that crime was successfully debunked. In this case the accused is also at the center of subsequent events - online criticism, swatting, doxxing, crowdfunding, and misinformation.

The complaint here seems to be that any reasonable application of BLP policy would demand exclusion, and that any editor who didn't explicitly mention BLP policy must not have taken it into consideration despite it having been mentioned in the discussion. But many editors did apply BLP policy, whether they mentioned it or not, and found the facts met the threshold for inclusion. I found the arguments for both inclusion and exclusion to be reasonable, and that outcome needed to balance a bunch of complex fact-specific factors. That is not the same as failing to take relevant policies into consideration. If I were to decide the outcome by making up my own mind as to whether the facts meet the threshold for inclusion, especially given this is a close call, I feel that would indeed be supervoting (which I am already being accused of doing). So, I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met. -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

• Overturn: Much of the arguments for inclusion rested on the fact that the accused has been mentioned in sources, but BLPCRIME already assumes that's the case. I don't think there was serious consideration of the privacy interests of the accused, who was a minor at the time of the offense, and even if there was, there were strong arguments in opposition that got short shrift from the close. A local consensus appears to have developed in BLPCRIME discussions, particularly related to killings that cause agita in the right-wing press, where large groups of editors (including canvassed ones) routinely show up to name and shame and advance a spurious interpretation of BLPCRIME that would have the exception swallow the rule. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think it should be noted that you un-involved in this discussion, but are very lively about this exact same issue at Killing of Iryna Zarutska R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. These are completely unrelated cases. If you read my comments there, you'd know I'm not uniformly opposed to including the names of accuseds in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn per Berchanhimez: "An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration". —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn The closer's rationale showed a poor grasp of BLP policy and was non-compliant. BLPNAME and LOWPROFILE don't go into abeyance just because some headlines of news publications include a detail. If anything we might want to consider avoiding the use of news articles whose headlines might lead to a BLP violation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • On that last sentence, you might want to see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_202#RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

    I wasn't even aware of that RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse accurate reading of consensus to include the widely publicized name of the suspect in the article. This is the correct interpretation of BLPCRIME which does not prohibit using Mr. Anthony's name in the article, but advises only that users seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime. Serious consideration was given to not use his name, and ultimately consensus was to reject this consideration. Frank Anchor 14:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Can you point me to a single include !vote that seriously considered not including the content? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not Frank, but I'm making a similar argument immediately below. Starting from the top, the "yes include" !votes by FrodoMarsh, Penguino35, Nemov all show engagement with what BLPNAME/CRIME say, and to me seem to explicitly therefore meet that bar. (I stopped my explicit search for names in response to your question after those 3.) In addition, the discussion *as a whole* amounts to serious consideration: while I can't speak for individuals, I AGF that many of people who participated later in the discussion, on both sides, did so after familiarizing themselves with the points made by others, and therefore will have given consideration to their arguments before chiming in that (in their view) the stronger argument went one specific way. Doubtless, of course, there were some - again on both sides - who will have made up their mind based on gut feel and not seriously considered any contradictory view. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  None of those !votes seriously considered not including. They largely just argued that being in RSes means we ought to include. That's creating a new rule, not grappling with the competing considerations. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  FrodoMarsh says satisfies the "potential harm vs encyclopedic value" concerns indicating awareness of and engagement with the fact that there is a real tradeoff here. Subsequent extensive discussion by them and with them explicitly has others mentioning BLPCRIME, so it seems reasonable to suppose they will have (re)read it at that point if not earlier. Penguino35 says due to extensive discussions on the Talk Page regarding WP:BLPCRIME which altered the way I viewed the previous RFC on this page (where I previously voted no) which implies he most definitely seriously considered not including, to the extent that he previously felt that way but has now changed his mind. Nemov also engages directly, head-on, and not unreasonably with the strength of the guidance provided by BLPCRIME, i.e. seriously considered. (As I wrote above, this is not an exhaustive list, just responding to your request to "a single !vote that seriously considered" with the first 3 I saw that engaged on a level which to me absolutely meets that bar. One can disagree with their conclusion, but not deny that they engaged with the tradeoff meaningfully and seriously. Martinp (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Given FrodoMarsh's other comments in that thread, I don't think they did really consider it other than paying lip service. Penguino's rationale makes little sense to me. I don't think Nemov has a good reading of BLPCRIME given the broader RfC (which they started) about amending BLPCRIME that other editors have mentioned here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  And I think Nemov's reading of BLPCRIME effectively eliminates "seriously consider" whenever enough sources cover a suspect/accused. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that to me, your response comes across as "I don't agree with their conclusion, so I can't imagine they considered it seriously". As Ed says below, "seriously consider" is rather vague. I think we need to assume good faith that articulate contributors to a discussion, who indicate awareness of a tradeoff, have seriously considered that tradeoff. And that a collective discussion which centres on that policy tradeoff, making repeated references to the policy tenets underpinning it, and which gives reasonable indications that people are reading and responding to each other, consititutes "serious consideration". I'm not familiar with the origin of the "seriously consider" wording, but it feels like it indicates precisely that at the time it was drafted, people were uncomfortable with blanket answer and wanted judgment to be used. And a reasonable discussion where points of view are clearly articulated and a (putative) consensus is reached is exacty how we as a community make judgment calls.

  (I think I'll disengage now; I don't think we quite agree with each other, but we've both made our points for the benefit of others as much as is reasonable). Martinp (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Admittedly, I don't live in the US, so I'm blissfully largely ignorant of the political (and racial) overtones of this specific case. I don't edit in this area, didn't participate in the discussion, but have read it today. This was a debate on how to reconcile when two fundamental policy constructs of Wikipedia are at odds in this instance (report what is notable/in RS vs BLP/privacy/do-no-harm). While opinions were strong, the discussion was reasonable with serious consideration of the policy issues by the participants. The closer parsed the discussion as ultimately reaching consensus of "yes, put the name in". I think this is a plausible conclusion; I also feel "no consensus" would have been plausible as well, but see no reason to challenge the closer's judgement in that regard. The arguments for overturning it seem to centre on a conviction that BLP considerations were not given enough weight. But, as Frank Anchor writes above, our policy in BLPNAME and BLPCRIME ends up advising caution should be applied and seriously considering not including a name in these circumstances, not prohibiting it. That serious consideration was made here....and (plausibly) reached a conclusion to include it. I think some commentators there and here would *like* BLPNAME and BLPCRIME to be stricter than it is, which is a policy discussion worth having, but shouldn't translate into overturning a close of a (largely) policy-compliant but tradeoff-aware discussion. Martinp (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not only was the consensus not clear, but the bulk of the include arguments were "well it's in the sources". The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor was overwhelmingly rejected by the community, as evidenced by the failed proposal to add editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing to WP:BLPCRIME. It was thoroughly rejected, so the rejected arguments based around sources had no basis in policy (WP:DETCON). Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  The main opposition in that RFC was not to the "extent and quality of reliable sourcing" part; some Oppose editors actually supported that part. What sunk it was mostly the "assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum" part. -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Only 2 out of 21 Oppose votes indicate any degree of lenience toward the rejected sourcing consideration proposal. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I only count 3 or 4 in support, but few Oppose editors cited the sourcing provision as a reason, certainly not enough to be "overwhelming". -- Beland (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse: BLPCRIME says editors should "seriously consider" omitting a name from the article. It does not tell us what to consider, which is a vagueness we might want to remedy so future discussions have guardrails (and admins can better weigh !votes). Participants in this RfC seriously considered including whether to include the name despite the open-ended policy, and on that point I appreciated Chaste Krassley's and Nemov's !votes in particular. With reasoning very similar to Martinp above, to me Beland made a reasonable determination of a narrow consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Participants in this RfC seriously considered including the name They're supposed to seriously consider not including the name. The first two sentences of BLPCRIME explain what the motivating considerations are, and the reference to the non-public figure section of the BLP policy clarifies it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies for mistyping; what I meant to say was "considered whether to include the name". It doesn't change the plain meaning of what I wrote, but I edited it above. Thank you for starting a discussion over at WT:BLP#Let's put this to rest to clear up the vagueness in this policy and improve future similar RfCs. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• It's a RfC close appeal, so of course, the closer gets accused of supervoting. This almost always happens and it's not okay. It needs to stop. We need to make it a rule that you have to play the ball and not the man. Show what's wrong with the close, not what's wrong with the closer.
  In this case we're dealing with a simple matter of core content policy. From WP:ONUS: "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those who seek to include disputed content". I do not see a consensus to include it so I would overturn.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I don't like the idea that we're trying to parse whether an editor "seriously considered" something by the phrasing they used in their comments. They offered a valid for including the name, widespread media coverage, which is a good enough reason. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I think this close is reasonable. WP:BLPCRIME says that editors must seriously consider not naming people under such circumstances, but serious consideration evidently was given to that possibility via the RfC, and a significant though not overwhelming majority of editors felt that other considerations ought to prevail. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse consideration was seriously given by the participants and voters, as required. Close is reasonable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. It was reasonable to up-weigh !votes that mentioned not just the use of the name in sources, but its widespread use. It was reasonable to down-weigh !votes that simply cited BLPCRIME as though it were more restrictive than it is. The close seems a reasonable judgement of policy-weighted consensus. Closers shouldn't have to take so much heat for their efforts. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. It was an accurate reading of the consensus in the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The question for a close challenge is not "Is this exactly what I would have done?" (though in this case, at least for me, I would have closed it pretty much the same way), but "Is the close unreasonable or an abuse of discretion?". The answer here is clearly "no"; the close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. It's clear to me that many who argued in the RfC to include did seriously consider not including the name, but given that it is already widely publicized and readily available, they decided that including it in the article would do nothing that hasn't already been done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (I didn't participate in this discussion, but I did participate in a previous one). The close is an accurate summation of the discussion, and the consensus found is entirely compatible with policy: No aspect of BLP prohibits inclusion, BLPCRIME requires editors to "seriously consider not including" and there was serious consideration given by almost all of those advocating for inclusion and many of those advocating for exclusion. However more than one editor argued for exclusion on the basis of something the BLP policy does not say, and I cannot in good faith say that, based on their contributions to the RFC, all of those editors did give serious consideration to the matter. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

• Endorse WP:BLPCRIME says to "seriously consider not including material"-- the "seriously consider" part is the RfC in this particular case. Beland provided a good and accurate summarization of that RfC. Some1 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - This close was well within discretion. A majority of editors agreed that the name should be included and they were basing this off analysis of the reliable sources and their interpretations of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with. The minority was an argument based purely on a rigid policy interpretation of BLPCRIME only. As far as I can tell, there is no amount of sourcing or arguments that would make the opposition turn nor did they adequalty address the affirmation arguments regarding how the readibility and quality of the article was greatly diminished by excluding the name. OP's points are fair but this is not a court with strict interpretation (see this and that). R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with.

This is problematic in that site-wide WP:BLP policy should never be dismissed as disputed. It is also untrue given that participants recently attempted to change WP:BLPCRIME with the goal of lowering the bar to name suspects not convicted of crimes, and it was overwhelmingly rejected. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The goal at that RfC was to create a rigid tier system, which is unrelated to this issue at hand and I'd probably have opposed it to. Also I'm not "dismissing it," I am pointing out the grammatical fact that this policy is vague. It is perfectly fair for this community-- and a majority of the Metfalf discussion--to interpret this policy within the framework of reflecting reliable sources and a host of other things I mentioned in my first comment. And it is perfectly fair for a neutral closer to accept that as legitimate consensus. R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem is the close was not neutral nor did it reflect consensus, as highlighted here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Overturn. Symphony Regalia has linked to my longer form explanation, and I wasn't originally planning to comment here as involved comments are less helpful than uninvolved ones. But I feel a need to respond to the idea that "having an RfC is what is meant by strongly consider". That's absolutely untrue. The guideline is not saying "if you get a bunch of people to think that it should be included in an RfC, then it should be included". It's saying that there should be a strong consideration of the encyclopedic value of the name of someone. An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration".

I am not saying that a closer cannot still find a consensus keeping that in mind. But the close needs to account for the fact that at least a significant portion of the "include" !votes were based on arguments that have been rejected in wider discussions. The closer says they "inferred" that people who !voted for "include" considered it as the guideline requires. That is not how it works - people are expected to show they considered it through their !vote - whether by expanding on their reasoning themselves or by referencing another !vote that has done so that they agree with. The closer doubled down on their close being appropriate when this was specifically brought up by 3 users on their talkpage - and as they're unwilling to correct that problem their close should be vacated and someone else who is willing to take the time to properly and completely consider things, including discounting !votes that are contrary to wider consensus and explaining their reasoning in more detail, should be allowed to re-close. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Please provide evidence (RfC links, etc.) that the wide dissemination of name in reliable sources has been "soundly rejected by the community mulitiple times" as a factor in inclusion of a name in a BLPCRIME context. In my reading, BLPNAME--a different but related policy--suggests that a wide dissemnation would weaken the case for exclusion (read the whole second sentence of BLPNAME). R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.

If the BLPNAME-based argument is that the accused's name only appears in primary and not in secondary sources, that can be countered by finding a secondary source that uses the name. In fact, I found a book which not only mentions the name but includes it in the title of the book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_of_Karmelo_Anthony/XsFC0QEACAAJ?hl=en

Going by BLPNAME instead of BLPCRIME (which may be wrong because BLPCRIME is more specific in scope) seems to set a lower threshold for inclusion, and the facts of this article would to my reading easily meet that threshold.

-- Beland (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That's arguments you were free to make by !voting in the discussion. Not as the closer as justification for your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I think Beland is responding to R. G. Checkers and pointing out that BLPNAME has a lower standard than BLPCRIME and that this article would meet the lower BLPNAME standard. None of that is relevant to the close and I don't think Beland is stating otherwise. I'll note, however, that I'm concerned that Beland is citing what purports to be a self-published book on Amazon that throws an error when you click on the link to Amazon. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think that this sort of reply is heavily based on Beland's somewhat strongly held personal opinions - and I generally prefer closers not have such a strong opinion on things they close (as it reduces the risk of a supervote, whether intentional or not). But I appreciate that this isn't as inappropriate a place to speak those views as part of the discussion as I made it sound. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not say that it is not a factor. But there's a significant minority (if not majority) of !votes to include that were solely based on that factor. Which has been rejected as a sole/primary reason - that's the whole reason we have BLPCRIME/BLPNAME/BLP in general in the first place. Is that we do not have to name someone just because their name is in reliable sources.

Failing to discount the many !votes that were based solely on it being in reliable sources as contrary to policy makes this a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

So you admit to overstating the community consensus on this matter. How much weight to give to any factor -- in the case the factor is every reliable source mentions and discusses the accused in significant detail -- is up to the community, and in this case (just like many others) a majority of particants thought it weighed toward inclusion. Also if consensus is not a vote, which it isn't, why can't the solely source-based (which are very legitimate) votes be weighed alongside other reasons that were brought up by other inclusion supporters? Of which there were many.

Overturning must establish this close was grossly outside the realm of reason, and so far the overturn side has been upheld by largely unevidenced claims of some massive site-wide community consensus against using reliable sources as the sole factor that apparently doesn't exist. You can't decree ex nihilo that the community must consider more than one or two or however many factors. That is just your interpretation of the policy. But in this discussion the majority viewed it otherwise. The only grounds you had to demonstrate otherwise was if it violated some larger community consensus, which you admitted to be unable to scatch up. R. G. Checkers ^talk 04:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not overstate the consensus. You are reading things that I did not say. The community has clearly stated that being named in reliable sources is not sufficient and is not a major factor. This is why we have BLPNAME in the first place. This is why BLPCRIME talks about when to name people. This is what the RfC about whether sources using the name is acceptable came to the consensus that sources not using the name should be preferred.

That is why solely "it's used in sources" !votes cannot be used. Because they are contrary to longstanding policy/guideline and prior site-wide consensuses. If you wish to change those consensuses, the proper way to do so is through another sitewide discussion or RfC. Not by acting like a local consensus can go against it just because people are tired of countering your view to point it out repeatedly to you. I did not admit I'm unable to do so - in fact, I referred you to the three policies that explicitly state it should not be the only or most significant factor. You refusing to accept that does not mean it doesn't exist, and ultimately, living persons is a contentious topic because of people like you who refuse to accept consensuses you disagree with and act like they don't exist.

Bluntly, it does not matter what a majority of people here viewed it as. That's why WP:CONLEVEL exists. A local consensus based on ignoring a site-wide consensus, as reflected in policies and guidelines, and without explicitly stating based on good reasoning that the site wide consensus shouldn't apply in this instance, is not a valid local consensus in the first place - period. Your dislike of the wider consensus does not mean it doesn't still exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the site-wide consensus in WP:BLPCRIME compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases? If it meant to require exclusion in all cases, I would expect it to say "editors should not include material" rather than "editors must seriously consider not including material". -- Beland (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It's compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases, with good reason. A significant minority, if not a majority, of "include" !votes in this discussion were based on flimsy (at best) reasons, and some based on reasons specifically against the sitewide consensus (ex: the reason "it's there in sources so we should name too"). A valid close would have taken into account any argument that provides such a "reason" and discounted it entirely. Yours did not do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME does not say "no matter how widespread coverage of the person's name is", so I would not reject "coverage of this event is so extensive that the person's name is widely known and thus they are a public figure now and there is no remaining harm to be done" as an argument incompatible with policy. -- Beland (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It isn't overstated. The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor was indeed overwhelmingly rejected by the community. The purpose of that tier system proposal was so "suspect, but mentioned widely in sources" would bias toward inclusion was opposed to defaulting to exclusion as it currently does, as evidenced by the failed proposal to add editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing to WP:BLPCRIME. It was thoroughly rejected. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I see at least two Opposed editors supporting that wording; most opposition was to "editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted". -- Beland (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is literally just a lie. Go read it yourself for anyone interested to see the bad faith straw grasping of the overturn side to uphold their policy decree ex nihilo. This is an unclosed RfC with many nuanced, diverging views, less participants than the Metcalf discussion, and some opposed participants pointed out that they explicitly supported reliable sources being in the analysis. At no point was the specific matter of reliable sources being the only/primary factor considered. R. G. Checkers ^talk 14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of lying. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

If one persons says "A" and another says "A because policy X" and a third person says "B", I think it would be a little too much of a "Simon says" game to exclude the first opinion from consideration, given that opinion 2 shows that A is a conclusion supported by policy.

Looking back at the discussion, supporters of inclusion were not merely arguing that the name appeared in some reliable sources. The most common logic was that "extensive national coverage" undermined the need to reduce harm, as any harm of disclosure had already been done by widespread distribution. As evidence, one editor gave a list of 8 national non-tabloid sources, and more were found in the article's citations. A secondary argument was that the accused has become more of a public figure, both due to the extensive coverage and due to events involving and actions of the accused and the family, including public fundraising. Not everyone connected all the dots, but they are all pointing to the same factual justification for their preferred outcome.

Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion. -- Beland (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

"Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion."

This is looking more and more like you inserted your view into the discussion and WP:SUPERVOTEd. TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The only reason I thought of this argument is that the closure was challenged and complaints were made that I didn't analyze the strengths of the arguments deeply enough. I did predict that doing so would result in more accusations of supervoting, and so it has happened yet again. It seems there is no closure that would have been accepted as fair by everyone involved. -- Beland (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It is correct that there are some RFC closes, which given the underlying dispute, will invariably end up being challanged here. Whether that particular RFC is one of them, I'm not sure. TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 - everything being said as a justification for the close makes it more and more clear this was a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith. -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. I assumed good faith at first - hence why I posted on your talk page encouraging you to explain further, and then once you did and it was insufficient, I encouraged you to self-revert it to avoid this. But you doubled down on your talk page and are doubling down here repeatedly. It gets more and more difficult to assume good faith when you continue ignoring now half a dozen editors - many of them more experienced than me even - saying that you're wrong here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you; I've spent way too much time carefully reading your arguments and responding. It's not unexpected that a crowd of people on the losing side of a debate would come to the appeal of the outcome and try to get a second bite at the apple. And it's not like people on the winning side haven't shown up and argued the outcome was correct. Most of the procedural objections have been poor; I've investigated the policy objections and that has actually increased my confidence in the outcome. The one procedural objection I think is worth a second opinion is whether headcount was a good way to decide whether the threshold for inclusion was reached, whether 4:3 is enough of a ratio, and whether discounting this would change the outcome. I hope someone who does not already have an opinion on BLPCRIME issues will show up and look at that and anything else they find askew. I fear no matter what they say, they will be accused of supervoting or ignoring policy, and people will just make the same arguments again that they made in the original discussion. Which will make it unpleasant for them and thus take longer to find a volunteer willing to do that. -- Beland (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, scouring the discussion does turn up one editor making the opposite argument: that news organizations use different standards for deciding whether to include names. And that's also true - instantaneous news value is not the same as long-term encyclopedic value. A second editor echoed this point, and said not all news organizations chose to include the name.

If we're looking for reasons to dismiss !votes, many editors advocated exclusion on the grounds that adding the name of the accused added nothing to the article. I evaluate that is a very weak argument, based on the counterarguments given.

Many editors advocated exclusion based on the fact that the accused was a minor. If we are only looking to Wikipedia policy, that is not mentioned as a factor in WP:BLPCRIME, so could be dismissed entirely. I would not do so, though; I think it is one of the factors envisioned by "serious consideration", and it is an important one when considering the harm that could be done to a living person. Other editors point out that this person was charged as an adult, which I know means the charges go on their public record, and the proceedings are fully public. This will show up on a criminal background check if they ever apply for a job, and the massive number of media stories will show up if anyone ever does a web search on their name. So what would normally be a quite strong factor is somewhat weakened. What remaining harm are we trying to protect this person from? According to the article they have admitted to stabbing another person; that is another factor which undermines the need to wait until after conviction - normally the fact of performing bodily harm is still in dispute.

Another argument that just came to mind - when someone in the future is doing a web search on this person, for example as a potential employee or first date, they have an extremely strong interest in knowing the person they are looking up has admitted to stabbing someone. Arguably what harm Wikipedia would add (to answer my own question) is keeping this event prominent in web results long after the trial has ended and media reports get less prominent. But that is also the service it provides to readers who might be concerned about their personal safety. We will report, in fairness to the accused, whether the jury decided this was in self-defense, and readers can take that into account.

I'm bringing up new arguments here because I think it's worth exploring them to make sure that overturning this wouldn't result in the same outcome with the same or stronger level of support, or a no-consensus outcome resulting in article instability for not much real-world benefit. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Your final paragraph makes clear you don't understand it. The ends do not justify the means, if the means were wrong. Even if it results in the same outcome, the community of editors and our readers deserve a close that is well thought out and articulated. And not one that is saying that just because the outcome may be the same, a poor close is acceptable. This attempt to justify the close is probably the most clear you've been that it's a SUPERVOTE. You closed it because you felt it was the correct outcome, and you're justifying it based on your own opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, when this sort of thing happens with a criminal case, a US appeals court that finds a problem in a trial doesn't automatically declare a mistrial and order a new one. Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial, but if the appeals court finds the error or misbehavior was very unlikely to have changed the outcome, it may admonish lawyers but will dismiss the appeal and let the verdict stand. Often appeals are limited to verifying that the law was correctly applied to the facts established by the original trial, but sometimes new facts are also considered if they were unknown at the time - for example, major new physical evidence. Asking "will new legal analysis or new facts change the outcome of this conviction" is not evidence that the appeals court judges are biased and just trying to preserve their favored outcome. Nor would the district court judge saying "I learned more about this case during the appeals process and what I learned made me more confidence in the verdict" be evidence of bias. That could be a legitimate result in a specific case, but if the judge never became less confident in their verdicts, that would be an indication of confirmation bias.

Also not saying I'm free of confirmation bias! That's one of the reasons I'm open to closure review. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn - Very much per voorts' comments on this. A lot of the arguments for inclusion were merely that RS stated who the accused is. This as WP:ONUS makes clear is not a reason by itself for inclusion. We still need to take policy considerations into account and it doesn't appear that Beland sufficiently discharged that duty in line with WP:DETCON when they closed the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Beland states above that inclusion v no inclusion was a "close call", indicating a WP:NOCON close in which we would generally default to exclusion in a BLP, but then goes on to state that to get around that "I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met". To me this runs contrary to WP:DETCON which states that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." If when weighing up the arguments on vaious sides, they found that the policy arguments were of similar weight, the analysis should have ceased and no consensus determined. Determining consensus is not merely a WP:HEADCOUNT. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, if a discussion was whether policy X or policy Y was more important in a given case, and reasonable arguments could be made either way but 90% of editors favor policy X being given priority, wouldn't we go with the outcome determined by policy X? There wasn't a 90% margin in this discussion, but with this example I mean to say that headcount should not be ignored. -- Beland (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn per voorts' comments; the overwhelming majority of comments arguing for inclusion presented no policy-based reason for inclusion. The entire point of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME is that the simple mention of a name in news sources is not, in and of itself, sufficient for inclusion; arguments that solely point to the fact that such sources exist, and nothing else, are therefore not based in policy and must be disregarded. The interpretation Beland presents above (that BLPCRIME sets a lower standard than BLPNAME for inclusion of a name) is not one that was presented in the RFC and is therefore clear evidence that Beland's closure was a WP:SUPERVOTE. And, of course, as an interpretation it is also obviously absurd to suggest that BLPCRIME could lower the standard of BLPNAME in a context that is plainly more BLP sensitive than normal. To seriously consider something means to consider it in light of the broader policies, including BLPNAME. Beland's interpretation of it would mean that any time any dispute over BLPCRIME occurs, the people in the dispute could immediately point to that dispute itself as seriously considering not including it the name, even if (as in the discussion at hand) they then plainly ignore BLPCRIME and present no arguments beyond the bare fact that it passes WP:V. also note that Beland's response above immediately leaped to arguing the underlying facts (The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.), further underlining the SUPERVOTE nature of their close - if Beland feels so strongly about both their idiosyncratic interpretation of BLPCRIME and the specific facts of this case, they should have weighed in with a !vote, not imposed that opinion via a closure. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is what I mean about being accused of a supervote if I deeply consider the merits of arguments, and being accused of improperly not taking policy into account if I don't. -- Beland (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I did not argue that BLPCRIME sets a lower threshold for inclusion that BLPNAME; I argue the reverse, that BLPNAME sets a lower threshold. I would also agree that BLPCRIME's higher threshold should be what controls, because it's more specific in scope.

  One objection to my closure was that I did not consider BLPNAME, but no one mentioned BLPNAME in the discussion. If BLPNAME set a higher threshold for inclusion, then it would be worth considering whether it is more strongly controlling and if applying it would have changed the outcome. But if we agree BLPNAME sets a lower threshold for inclusion and that the discussion relied on BLPCRIME, then the discovery of BLPNAME after closure is not a reason to re-open. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse per R. G. Checkers.

Additionally, a link to this closure review at the RfC may be appropriate. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment That the name should be included because it is reported in relation to a single event, which has not been sought by the named individual, seems at odds with being a low profile individual. WP:Who is a low-profile individual says A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify if they do not seek to be reported on, but RS report on them and that reporting is all BLP1E, then they remain a low profile individual. So a close that says an individual should be named based on unsought BLP1E reporting doesn't seem right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  There could well be other arguments for inclusion, it's just that I don't see how this one is a valid. To say they should be included just because there has been reporting is the same, per the essay, as saying they should be included because they are a low profile individual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as I think it is the correct representation, but the reasoning was shockingly sparse. I was kindof surprised. This issue needs to be resolved at BLPCRIME more definitively, as I have already seen several debates over this on assorted, but obviously contentious topics, just in the past few months. Metallurgist (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:SENSE. Name is covered 20+ times in references, the vast majority of which are RS. Since the name is covered in the WP:ARTICLE (as "an article" includes its constituent references), the quibble is only about whether it can be mentioned in the prose of the article--in other words, hair splitting. The cost/benefit equation is clearly in favor of inclusion because every single RS website covering the killing already mentions the name in question, often in the titles of their articles which is why it is in our references, so our inclusion does not change the exposure of the suspect's name. The arguments that I'm incorrect about the risk/benefit ratio are themselves incorrect, but assertions that this assessment somehow doesn't amount to "Serious consideration" are simply ABF and should be entirely discarded themselves bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is a close review, not a place to raise new IAR arguments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm specifically rebutting your above query Can you point me to a single include !vote that seriously considered not including the content?. Just because you don't recognize serious consideration doesn't mean it wasn't. And if you think WP:SENSE is an IAR argument, rather than an approach to balance of harms, you've yet again missed the point. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources. "it's in the machine generated ref list" isn't a valid argument; it's circular reasoning. Even further than that, you're referring to news references which WP:BLPNAME already rules out. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - WP:BLPCRIME has already been seriously considered across two RfCs. Many of the exclude !votes simply cited the policy repeatedly, as if it categorically prohibits including a name. That’s not the case, and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the policy actually says. Nemov (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse – considering some of the chief bludgeoners have been banned at ArbCom over similar culture-war topics, this was quite unsurprising. Nothing has changed since I !voted to include Karmelo Anthony's name, and I stand by every word I wrote. Most "exclude" !votes just cite the policy without bothering to read what it actually says. Meanwhile the "include" !votes point out the fact that we follow sources. Opposers failed to rebut the inclusion arguments, while the exclusion arguments were easily rebutted by quoting what BLPNAME and BLPCRIME actually say. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

Thank you Tamzin for pointing out the word limits. Apologies for what I've done to violate it myself or encourage violating it by other people. I will not be responding any further to this discussion in any way, shape, or form unless someone asks me a direct question about my views. In such case please ping me and I will still try to keep any such response to as short as possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: To clarify, WP:CT/AP, unlike a few other CTOPs, doesn't have a general word limit; this is a discretionary sanction, specific to this discussion, per ArbCom's recent change to WP:STANDARDSET. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on it (not) being default. I still agree with it and will abide by what I said above - no longer replying unless I’m specifically pinged with a specific question. Thanks for all you do to try and keep things on track :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I've started an RFCBEFORE on BLPCRIME here: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Let's put this to rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 12 September 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.

Brainstorming

Admins may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#AfDs on current event articles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Page removed by mistake

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, would it be possible to restore the following article? I believe it was mistakenly removed due to vandalism. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_islands 130.25.89.207 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia proper; that link points to Wikimedia Commons, which is a different breed of dog from Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that the image at Commons was vandalism in itself, so let's thank the IP for ensuring that more people keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 September 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.

Article created in file namespace

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 the first time I've come across something like File:Michael Aidoo portrait.jpg. It looks like someone tried to create a Wikipedia article in the file namespace. I'm not sure how to tag this since the file that was also uploaded could be tagged for speedy deletion with {{nsdnld}} or WP:F4 or even possibly with {{db-f9}} per WP:F9. It looks like the uploader of the files is also trying to create an article on their user page at User:Chairman Big Aidoo. Should the article content just be removed from the file's page, and the file tagged for speedy deletion per F4? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Both would fall under G11. I'm in the middle of something and on a mobile with poor connectivity and low battery or I'd just do it myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Ivanvector. I didn't think of G11 at all. Anyway, another admin also saw the pages in question and deleted them as such. Apparently (another thing I didn't notice), they had been deleted before for similar reasons and were recreations. Given that the creator is now blocked as a "promotional only" account, this thread can probably be closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:42, 22 September 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.

Block challenge from Slacker13

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.

---

• Slacker13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user who I blocked and later revoked talk access has emailed me challenging my actions. I'm posting here for review.

Slacker13 has been at the centre of a large thread at ANI recently over their disruption of articles related to Zak Smith, who is some kind of popular gamer or something with a following of meatpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer). The ANI led to Slacker13 being banned from the topic. They posted a clearly retaliatory Arbcom case request against many of the editors who supported that action, which is where I became aware of them, and I blocked them as NOTHERE on the basis of escalating harassment of opponents in a topic they'd already been banned from. I've been away on vacation for a couple weeks so wasn't watching, but a few days ago Slacker13 pinged me on their talk page in a post about continuing to monitor editors in the same topic and demanding sanctions. Since they were still only using their talk page to interfere in the topic, I revoked access.

Their email I received this morning indicates they've opened an appeal at UTRS (I haven't checked) but they've also pointed out a note on my user page about my association with Simonm223, one of the editors they named in their case request. Neither of us make any secret here that we know each other in real life; the note refers to an edit Simonm223 made on my laptop while my account was logged in one time he was visiting my apartment while apartment-hunting himself. It was also sixteen years ago, and the note has been on my user page since 2014, but don't worry, Slacker13 has taken a screenshot in case I delete the incriminating evidence along with nine years of my page's history to hide it. You see, Slacker13 believes that everyone who opposes them are part of a widespread conspiracy of role-playing enthusiasts out to publish misinformation about Zak Smith (I haven't played an RPG in 30 years, and still don't know who Zak Smith is). The email reads very much like more of the same "everyone is out to get me" conspiracy mindset.

Anyway, they have challenged my actions solely on the basis of this connection, not that their edits were not disruptive or not violations of their topic ban, nor that they intend to edit constructively in any other topic. I request a review of my actions by uninvolved administrators. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I'm tempted to suggest we just blanket WP:CBAN Slacker13 and all associated sockpuppets and meatpuppets, with no unban request considered for at least six months. This has been a massive time sink, though reasonable people may think my suggestion is overkill. I also wonder if anyone has looked at the claimed bluesky thread that brought all these sockpuppet accounts to Wikipedia, while being mindful of WP:OUTING. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I've been trying to distance myself from the Zak Smith dispute and the main complaint I've had with the meat puppetry going on there is that it's taken a relatively routine RfC and made it into a three-ring circus. I'm just kind of tired of this dispute and would very much like to not have to think about Slacker13 again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Not overkill at all. In fact I wrote basically this exact proposal a week or so ago in one of the SPIs, but my edit would not save. Turns out being in the woods in Newfoundland does not lend itself well to editing Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This may not be entirely necessary but I think it bears mentioning: the main impact of Ivanvector and myself knowing each other in the context of all this is that I found their argument (among those of others) against a cban in the AN/I thread persuasive and actually changed my !vote, striking a previous support for a cban, and noting that I hoped they could return to regular editing on other articles with a tban. It's unfortunate that Slacker13 seems to have constructed this idea in their head of some sort of monolithic opposition to their position in light of this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse Even assuming your friendship with Simon makes you involved (I don't think it does), I think any reasonable admin would have revoked TPA here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I also think any reasonable admin would also have indef'd for continuing to violate the TBAN. This was a straightforward case. Slacker13, if you're reading this, please stay away from en-wiki for at least six months if you want to take the SO. During that time, reflect on what went wrong and work on writing an unblock request that accounts for that, doesn't blame other editors, and shows that you will edit productively going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse, Arbcom made it clear that Slacker13's attempts to disqualify people from the discussion were not particularly valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse, belief in conspiracies stems from a need for understanding in uncertain times, as well as as a desire to belong to a superior group. Lectonar (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse, and investigate any connections they may have to User:FixerFixerFixer (who is Zak Smith.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

See this, has already been investigated. Daniel (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

86 them - I'd also suggest requiring appeals-to-ArbCom-only, but I don't think that's feasible. The only reason I'd want that in any event is to throttle spurious/NOTTHEM unblock requests and keep from wasting UTRS' time on a pointless axe-grinding contest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean this to apply only to Slacker13 or to all sockpuppets/meatpuppets? I'm pretty sure the former, just making sure it's clear. --Yamla (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to the appeals-to-ArbCom-only thing, you read it right. Appeals by socks/meats generally get summarily rejected on the grounds it's not the sockmaster's main account. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no private information at play, and this isn't an arbitration-related sanction (ie. placed by the Committee or by AE etc.), so appeals to ArbCom are not only not necessary, but also would be declined as out of our scope — per the banning policy, bans applied by the community can only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee if there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. We have already declined to hear an appeal from Slacker13 that was instigated under this clause once, last month. Daniel (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse. Slacker13's only activity on the project in the last month has been to right perceived great wrongs in this topic (wow, has it really only been one month?). Both the block and subsequent TPA revocation are appropriate and necessary to prevent the continuation of what any reasonable editor would consider to be ongoing violations of their topic ban. --tony 19:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Please see UTRS appeal #106514-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Slacker13 also incorrectly claimed that I was involved in the Zak Smith topic area in one of their UTRS messages, so I'll put my response here. The fact that I helped process the two sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive § 30 January 2020 and 01 February 2020 does not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, as I participated "purely in an administrative role". My interactions with an IP editor at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280 § pornhub.com/insights and Talk:Sasha Grey/Archive 2 § PH/insights/2018-year-in-review do not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, as these are about unrelated topics. My collapsing of apparently LLM-generated comments on Talk:Zak Smith does not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, as it was a straightforward application of the WP:AITALK guideline to address a conduct issue and was performed purely as an administrative action.

  And finally, I am happy to answer any questions from anyone about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 § 06 September 2025 and 26 August 2025, but the fact that Slacker13 is displeased with the findings does not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, either. — Newslinger talk 21:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree Newslinger, and further to this, Slacker13's attempted argument that a whole raft of individuals are "involved" (a point they have been pushing since early last month) is errenous in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Newslinger, you clearly put a ton of time and care into the investigation into possible sockpuppets of Slacker13 and it is impressive but I found the report just about incomprehensible. It seemed that, at most, there was a set of common interests among editors. Did any Checkusers look into this case and use their tools? I can see that not all editors who had edited the Zak Smith article were found "guilty" of being meatpuppets but wouldn't you find some of these coincidences among people who share a common affection for any artist? I'm not going to go over the case for each editor named because, like I said, I found the results confusing, I just wanted to know more about the process that was used. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The CU checks are documented on the SPI page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I spent the time digesting the results in detail when they were first posted, as they overlapped with existing arbitrator business. By contrast, I found the report totally comprehensible and a very efficient way of presenting the information, to which I commended Newslinger on their talk page at the time. Daniel (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I checked on what was happening at the talk page almost every day and I assure you that it is not because they share a common affection for [that] artist. This is clearly a sophisticated and well-orchestrated campaign to sway consensus and disrupt our processes. And it worked, as the page was protected with the sexual harassment info removed. I know it is important to assume good faith but this has gone for too long and the blocks were warranted.

  Oh, and if Slacker13 or anyone else is reading this right now, no, I don't have a COI and I'm not part of the RPG community. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Liz, I understand that the 26 August Slacker13 SPI case can be hard to follow because it involves many users and a large amount of data. After asking editors for input and examining the available evidence, I presented the findings in two subsections: the Analysis section concluded that the activity on Talk:Zak Smith on 20 August was the result of an off-wiki coordination campaign that specifically directed users to the talk page, and the Account review section individually reviewed the behavioral history of each listed editor to determine whether they should be blocked or warned for apparent meatpuppetry.

  Here is a simplified timeline of the events:

  • 11 August: The court judgment for Smith v. Nagy was published on CanLII.
  • 18 August: Slacker13 obtained the URL for the court document on CanLII on this date, according to the timestamp in the URL. Slacker13 also regained their IP block exemption permission on this date, after requesting it by email.
  • 19 August: Slacker13 returned to editing, having made no edits since 12 April. Per the pageview statistics, Talk:Zak Smith received 7 pageviews on this date, while the Zak Smith article received 43.
  • 20 August: Involved editors claim that, on this date, Zak Smith (who is said to have about 4,000 Instagram followers) posted an Instagram story that vaguely referenced Smith v. Nagy without mentioning Wikipedia. Slacker13 deleted the "Sexual abuse allegations" section of the Zak Smith article, the first non-bot edit to the article in 14 months, which marked the beginning of the current content dispute. At 20:49, Slacker13 posted a comment on Talk:Zak Smith supporting the removal of the disputed content; the comment contained the URL of the court document that Slacker13 obtained on 18 August, and was the first non-bot edit to the talk page in about 2.5 years. Eight users that were not extended confirmed posted messages in support of Slacker13 within two hours; all of these users had been inactive for 5–14 months and had never edited in the Zak Smith topic area before. Talk:Zak Smith received 595 pageviews on this date (about 15% of Smith's follower count), exceeding the 398 pageviews on the Zak Smith article.
  • 21 August: Three more users that were not extended confirmed posted comments in support of Slacker13 on Talk:Zak Smith. At 16:56, the content dispute was reported to the WP:BLPN noticeboard.

  Based on this information, I concluded that there is no plausible explanation for the activity on Talk:Zak Smith on 20 August that does not involve an off-wiki coordination campaign that directed the involved users straight to the talk page, because Smith's vague Instagram story by itself could not have plausibly generated such activity on this talk page within such a short timeframe. As Slacker13 had already been indefinitely blocked, I applied the policy on meatpuppetry to block the users who were likely to have been participating in this campaign, based on their individual behavior patterns, and sent them messages stating that an unblock request would be more likely to succeed if they accept a topic ban from Zak Smith as an unblock condition.

  This investigation was based on behavioral evidence only. Two checkuser scans showed the accounts in the 26 August case to be technically unrelated, which suggests that they were operated by different individuals, but the behavioral findings support the conclusion that these different individuals engaged in off-wiki coordination to influence the outcome of the content dispute on Talk:Zak Smith, which is still prohibited by the policy on meatpuppetry.

  My comment here is a broad overview of the 26 August case, hopefully presented in a way that is more understandable. There are many additional details in the case itself. If you or anyone else has a more specific question about any aspect of the case, I am also happy to answer it. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Endorsed, and support a formal community ban as not just WP:NOTHERE but a thorough WP:TIMEWASTE since WP:WASTEOFTIME actually exists! for the project's volunteers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment As a rule, I don't like talk page access being removed except for cases of persistent vandalism and harassment. I think that Slacker13 could be a valid editor if they could ever get over their single-mindedness on Zak Smith but I don't foresee that happening any time in the near future and I recognize that the community is out of patience with their arguments of there being a plot to damage Smith's article and reputation from the online RPG community. But I say this now so that when enough time has passed, Slacker13 should get the access to their talk page back and be able to submit a regular unblock request. I'm not sure that six months will be long enough as Slacker13 does see this still as a "righting great wrongs", life vs. death scenario and most people do not let go of that attitude very easily or quickly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I feel Slacker's obsession with seeing things which clearly aren't there was already amply demonstrated when they accused someone of having a connection to the RPG community because their name appeared in one of those books taken from Wikipedia content which attempted CC or GFDL compliance by putting all the names of contributors somewhere. In other words they probably edited some Wikipedia article which was RPG related at some stage. It's a fairly ridiculous connection to make since as anyone experienced with the world knows, the MeToo movement has meant significant focus on such accusations by people totally unrelated to the community the person is from. From a Wikipedia PoV, sometimes perhaps even crossing a bit too far into the activist threshold when it comes to BLPs as we experience at BLPN. There is absolutely no reason to assume everyone has some connection to the RPG community just from some basic understanding of the modern world without needing to know anything about Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse per everyone else has already said what needs to be stated. It's disappointing that Slacker13 still doesn't understand what was wrong with their behavior, and is still wasting our time about this. FYI, the RfC on the talk page has run its course, and is ready to be closed, if someone wants to tackle that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 24 September 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.

Brigading at Advance UK its Talk page

Somebody is clearly sending meatpuppets to Advance UK and Talk:Advance UK. I don't think that many of them have experience with Wikipedia, or even know what a meatpuppet is, so I don't want to be too hard on them individually. Some of them have declared their COIs, although not in the standard way, so I don't want to accuse them of being deceptive. Nonetheless it is becoming disruptive and it has been going on for a while without blowing over. Clearly somebody is organising this and I was wondering if there was anything we can do to curtail it? DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand there is a forum for registered members on their website. For what I would hope are obvious reasons, I'm not associating or contributing to such websites. Knitsey (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a few months by Pppery and I have added a note to the talk page, with a pointer to the reliable sources guideline. That should hopefully curb the worst of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection request of Uruguay

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.

---

• Uruguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per title. 2800:AC:4010:2D5F:1:0:F304:63A6 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done You've provided no reason to believe it's necessary and there have only been six edits to that article in the past week. WP:AIV is probably a better place if you spot ongoing vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Almost all country pages are protected. Why not this one? 2800:AC:4010:2D5F:1:0:F304:63A6 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's the wrong question to ask. Please thoroughly read WP:PROTECT. We don't protect pages unless they need the protection. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 24 September 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 of partial block on IP address 2409:4091:903c:3c0d:e136:b9a4:cccb:1c99

"Hello,

I am writing to appeal the partial block on my IP address, which is 2409:4091:903c:3c0d:e136:b9a4:cccb:1c99. I understand that the block was put in place due to 'persistent addition of unsourced content' from my IP range.

I was not the user who was adding the unsourced information. I am a different user who appears to be affected by this broad block on the IP range. I would like to make good-faith edits to Wikipedia, and I am not associated with the previous disruptive behavior.

I am aware of Wikipedia's policy on citing reliable sources and I intend to follow it for all my contributions. Could my IP please be unblocked so that I can make constructive edits?

Thank you for your consideration." 2409:4091:903C:3C0D:E136:B9A4:CCCB:1C99 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

A /22 seems like a very large IPV6 range to be blocking. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you were able to post a message here means that you are not totally blocked. What page do you want to edit? What did you want to do there? Have you tried adding a comment to the article talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a partial block from, by my count, five articles. There are over 7 million other articles that this IP range can still edit that are not affected by this block. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Original poster, that range is only blocked from five articles, out of millions. What edits do you want to make to those articles? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The range is blocked from 14 pages. That still leaves 7 million, but I suspect a key factor in this thread is that account creation has also been blocked. Ping Oshwah who added the ACB block, and HJ Mitchell who extended it for a year. I think we probably need some better guidelines for modifying partial blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Allowing account creation is probably the easiest fix but there's no denying there's a lot of junk coming from there. The extent of my involvement is this thread where it appeared the target of this block was using an IPv4 I'd previously blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree; allowing account creation would be the easiest way to resolve this. My involvement with this IP range is that multiple IP addresses from within it were adding disruption to the Jimmy Sheirgill article, and this is the CIDR that I determined that should be blocked in order to stop the issue. I didn't have a problem with applying this block to such a huge range, since I only partially blocked it from editing that one article. I didn't take account creation being blocked into account when I applied it. For the record, I have no issues with the block being modified in order to allow for account creation to be performed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the block on account creation. Note that I have seen cases in the past where rangeblocks with account creation blocked on IPv6 ranges have somehow managed to prevent account creation from addresses outside the block, so it may overall be a good idea to disable blocking account creation on pblocks in general. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Please restrict edits to this page

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.

---

Bahlil Lahadalia - Wikipedia

This page has been vandalised multiple times due to the divisive nature of being an Indonesian politician at this time (or any time). Please consider locking or protecting it to avoid vandalisms. You can see that the page has been vandalised numerous times for a short period of time. Thank you. Mtlh01p (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mtlh01p: I've given it a couple of weeks of semi-protection. In the future you can make straightforward protection requests like this at WP:RFPP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 25 September 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 to block

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 block my account until the end of 27 September. I have personal matters to attend to and am spending too much time here editing. It is urgent. Marina redaktor (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 23 September 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.

Consensus for TAIV exception

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 request consensus for an exemption to the criteria for temporary account IP viewer.
The exception is to clause 2: 6 months of editing experience. The current requirement is 6 months of editing, but I have only been editing for 4 months and a week.
I currently have over 2700 edits, local rollback permissions, and my account is mainly focused on Anti-Vandalism work, so having this permission will greatly aid my anti-vandalism work when temporary accounts are introduced.
I have read many pages concerning temporary accounts, TAIV, and IP viewing in general on different projects.

I know that local sysops cannot grant this exception, this is why I am asking for consensus on this instead of asking for a exception at WP:PERM/TAIV.
--pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 03:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear here procedurally, am I correct in understanding that you're seeking a local consensus so that you can then request access from a steward through their extraordinary authority under WP:TAIVGRANT? If so, that sounds reasonable procedurally (no comment on substantively), similar to how we do other local matters that need to ultimately be actioned by a steward, but just want to be clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The WMF policy only allows stewards to grant an exemption where an editor is requesting the userright "for a purpose that cannot be reasonably addressed by users who already have this access". Fighting vandalism using TAIV can "be reasonably addressed" by – as of now – 969 editors on en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that reading. I could see supporting an exception for, say, a sister-wiki admin with specialized knowledge in dealing with a specific LTA, or someone who needs access to develop a user script; but routine anti-vandalism doesn't seem to meet the threshold you quote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that any exception for large Wikimedia projects can be denied, as there are always many admins/TAIV who can reasonably address vandalism? --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 03:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. As I read the policy, exceptions to the WMF requirements cannot be granted on WMF projects that have a sufficient number of admins, functs, and other editors who can use the tool for any valid purpose. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree per the two hypotheticals I gave above, both involving a purpose that the corps of enwiki admins+TAIVs wouldn't necessarily be competent at addressing. But it works out the same either way in pro-anti-air's case. And ultimately will be up to the stewards to decide, if someone does argue they have some atypical reason for needing access in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your hypotheticals, but I think those cases will be extremely rare. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I've updated WP:TAIVGRANT to make clear this isn't purely plenary on the stewards' part. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I am requesting in advance before temporary accounts are added to enwiki. --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 03:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Since I don't see any reason why you're fundamentally special and deserve an exception to the normal rules. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, I would echo Pppery's sentiment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the point of making an exception for someone who can ask for that right in under two months anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 24 September 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.

AAlertBot crash

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.

---

AAlertBot crashed today, making all sorts of nonsense edits. Could someone mass rollback all its edits from today (September 24), starting with this one? Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Headbomb, rollback would revert all of the bot's consecutive edits to each page, going back to whenever the last edit by another user was. I don't think there's an automated way to undo only the latest edit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it turns out there is a way: Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire. Now done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There's also good old-fashioned parallel-tabbing + repetitive motions! I got a bunch of them that way. But gosh I wish I'd known about that script on the day of the Buffalo stampede. I had to do evil things to JWB to sort that one out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Many thanks! RE good old-fashioned parallel-tabbing that's what I was trying to avoid, with 102 pages do deal with multiple clicks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There's an art to it, all about getting the right sequence of hand movements, almost like playing the piano. I learned that a long time ago as a Wikidata admin before there were good mass-deletion scripts there. What I was doing here is load 30 tabs, then on each: click Twinkle "restore", wait for popup, ↵ Enter, ctrl+Tab ↹, repeat. So that goes right index, right pinkie, rest, left thumb and middle finger—get lost in the ⁴
₄ time rhythm. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Well aware it's piano-like. I often trigger Citation bot that way (I've got it shortcutted to CTRL+A), but some articles need a bit of hammering first, so it's a game of search (CTRL+F) and find (CTRL+G) and replace (CTRL+V) follow by saving (CTRL+S), bot trigger (CTRL+A), and close window (CTRL+W), repeat for many many articles etc.. Just unfamiliar with which tools are needed for this specific piano piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:00, 25 September 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.

Where to report a user ignoring a contentious topic restriction?

A user (@OneAgentBoi) who have I have previously warned about Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia and the requierment to have ECP status, is continuing to edit in this topic area and has even blanked their talk page to resume editing: [33].

Is there is specific area where I can report this or am I able to do so here?

Thanks. Ixudi (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Blanking one's own user talk page is allowed (it is an indication that it has been read), and ECP status only applies to two subtopics. Which has OneAgentBoi been editing? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit added "Punjabi-origin" to "Sayyid dynasty", which seems to me to place it squarely under social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This will do, or WP:AE. Blocked 31 hours. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Renewal of page restrictions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Renewal of page restrictions are modified as follows:

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Logging and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging 2 are modified as follows:

Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging is modified as follows:

All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

Odd user pages

In the last few days I keep seeing user pages being created that purport to be for early education. They vary in the wording and appear unrelated to any specific Wikimedia initiative (here's an example and here's another). The latter of the two user pages had some fairly blatant promotional text that was deleted before being replaced with the "educational platform" version. Has anyone else come across these? -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

We've seen stuff like this before, usually from classrooms that have not been involved in a registered wiki-education program of any sort. This has a similar feel to it. They know enough not to put this in mainspace, but not enough to know this is not the kind of editing that Wikipedia is looking for. I'd suggest a conversation on the talk page of these users, to ferret out why they have created the pages and why they all seem to be focused on education. I don't think these are bad faith or promotional content; they're not promoting anything. Risker (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought that was a possibility as well, though this by one of the editors in question is problematic.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

And yet another. I've asked whether this is a coordinated project or such, but note that I haven't had much luck getting responses from participants in projects working outside of Wikipedia:Education program or edit-a-thons run by experienced Wikipedians.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we whom can't see the linked edits have a summary of that? Iv seen these things, but haven't seen anything outright problematic. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm personally one of those users, we are actually doing some educational tasks that involve creating a Wiki platform and add some educational stuff to it that we are going to be marked for. We don't mean no harm. Please bear with us Jesco S Ipumbu (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jesco S Ipumbu: The pages your group is creating are unrelated to the improvement of Wikipedia, which is why many of them are being deleted in short order. Is there an individual who is running this project?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review: Fabricated Article "Brahuistan" Lacks Historical and Academic Basis

I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of administrators a serious concern regarding the article Brahuistan. The article appears to promote a politically motivated and historically inaccurate concept that lacks verifiable sources, academic legitimacy, and cultural recognition.

There is no credible historical, ethnographic, or political record that supports the existence of a region or national identity called "Brahuistan." The Brahui-speaking population of Balochistan has always been an integral part of the broader Baloch identity. The Khanate of Kalat, often referred to as the "Brahui Confederacy" due to the Brahui language of its ruling Ahmedzai dynasty, never used the term "Brahuistan." The region was historically divided into two administrative zones: Jhalawan and Sarawan. No sub-region or autonomous entity named "Brahuistan" has ever existed.

Even British colonial ethnographers rejected the term. As cited in Fred Scholz’s *Nomadism and Colonialism: A Hundred Years of Baluchistan, 1872–1972* (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 21), the British deliberately chose to name the region "Baluchistan" and not "Brahuiistan," despite the presence of Brahui-speaking tribes. Scholz writes: > “When the British came to the southern region of the Brahui Confederacy, they called the newly conquered land not Brahuiistan, but 'Baluchistan.'”

Furthermore, the Khans of Kalat consistently identified themselves as Baloch. In official portraits and historical records, the word "Baloch" appears in their titles. While their native language was Brahui, they never claimed a separate Brahui national identity. The concept of "Brahuistan" is not supported by any historical map, administrative division, or scholarly source.

Prominent nationalist figures such as Dr. Mehrang Baloch—born in Kalat, from the Langov tribe, and a native Brahui speaker—have never advocated for a separate Brahui region or identity. In fact, the modern Baloch nationalist movement includes Brahui speakers at its core. The unity of Baloch identity transcends linguistic differences and is rooted in shared history, struggle, and cultural consciousness.

Balochistan is historically and culturally defined by its regions: Makran, Kalat (Jhalawan and Sarawan), Lasbela, Rakhshan, Kharan, Koh-e-Suleiman, Quetta, and others. No region named "Brahuistan" exists in any official, academic, or local record.

Given the lack of reliable sources, the absence of historical precedent, and the potential for this article to promote divisive and fabricated narratives, I respectfully request that administrators review the article and consider its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability.

Thank you. Moshtank (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Moshtank, you have already nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahuistan and it was already kept. If you have issues with the article's content, you can discuss that on the talk page of the relevant article, but no one's going to be deleting it. Please also be aware that the article is in a contentious topic. I've left a note on your talk page about that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Moshtank, on reading your report I was going to tell you that deletion is handled at AFD, not here, but I see you've already tried that. You have two possibilities now:

1. If you think that there was an error in the way the AfD discussion was handled (such as consensus being misread) you can start a deletion review discussion.
2. You can wait a few more months and start another AfD.

Either way it would be best to consult the closer of the original AfD first, in your own words. She doesn't bite.Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in this whole area, I do have my concerns about the quality of the discussion at the AFD. Keep arguments referred to notability of the Brahui people and language (not disputed by the nominator), but did not address the nominator's argument that "Brahuistan" is not an accepted term or concept. Most of the sourcing provided is offline only and so hard to cursorily verify; the sources available online discuss Brahui people and language but not Brahuistan per se. I've tried to do a (admittedly very cursory) search, but apart from Wikipedia itself, the only mention of "Brahuistan" I can find is at [34], which does not seem like an impartial source. So, while I may be off the mark, I fear we may be elevating a controversial nationalistic aspiration (possibly with a few passing historical mentions) without having actually engaged with whether this is warranted. I'm not quite sure of the optimal process in such a situation (for instance, is a DRV warranted?), but I'm not convinced the AFD engaged with the right issues. I may be wrong. Martinp (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Martinp, my advice would be to take this to the talk page for further discussion and see if you can gain a consensus for whether the content of the article is reliable and verifiable or not in an environment where editors feel less pressure than an AfD. A clear, damning AfD nomination goes a long way; this didn't have one. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This thread has clearly been AI generated - you can tell from the style of writing, the em dashes and the attempts at using markdown for formatting (e.g. * for emphasis, > for quotes). 86.23.87.130 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That would be why @Phil Bridger specified "in your own words". -- asilvering (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on the wording of the comments at the AFD, it seems both Moshtank and other participants there are perhaps not native English speakers. So I don't fault them for trying to use AI to make themselves more understandable - especially since no-one really seemed to engage with the point Moshtank was trying to make at the AFD. I dropped a note on Liz' (closing admin's) page myself to avoid needless bureaucracy. I may follow up with more discussion elsewhere (e.g. talk page as suggested above) but first want to give a chance for already involved parties to comment. Martinp (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Moshtank also added more textwalling on the closed nomination page (now reverted). Nathannah • 📮 18:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Moshtank has now started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahuistan (2nd nomination). --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Following up to note that our policy on LLM-generated and -assisted discussion contributions dates back to the consensus determined at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions. Moshtank's (likely) use of AI to help craft his message here is explicitly permitted by that consensus: The reasoning is (presumably) Moshtank's own, which they articulated without the use of LLMs at the AFD #1 and their points were ignored. They may have used an LLM here, but it seems directly covered by the caveat at the close that the LLM prohibition does not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments. Martinp (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)