No consensus to overturn the denial. I count 3 users (Rsjaffe, Toadspike, Voorts) in favor of endorsing the denial and 4 users (Femke, zzuuzz, Tamzin, EggRoll97) in favor of granting rights. I don't think there's much more to say on this matter - TAIV is a relatively new right that doesn't have the sort of entrenched norms that would allow me to make a strong "strength of arguments" case that would wedge this deadlock in one direction; the guideline itself says nothing more thanAdmins are permitted to decline applicants who meet these criteria but are otherwise unsuitable for access to this tool with no hypotheticals on why that would be. While others may have done things differently, the level of disagreement here clearly shows that noabuse of discretion has occurred.* Pppery *it has begun...01:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a request for review ofmy denial of FMSky's request for TAIV access. In March-April of this year, @FMSky hadtwo arbitration enforcement sanctions. One, a two-week pblock for personal attacks and disruption, and 2,topic ban from CT/GG. Based on the ongoing topic ban, I denied his request. FMSky felt that was not a sufficient reason for denial. I opened up the discussion for more opinions, and @Femke weighed in with a different, but not definitive, opinion. Femke noted thatwe're all still figuring it out here, which I thoroughly agree with, and would like to hear opinions from other administrators, either here or at the original request. As I stated in response to FMSky, any admin is welcome to reverse my decision. — rsjaffe🗣️21:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it would be just nice to have to revert genre warriors popping up all over album articles etc, otherwise Binksternet would have to do all the work lmaoFMSky (talk)21:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @rsjaffe. Both the recent pblock and the topic ban are independently disqualifying in my view. Unlike other userrights, this one requires a high degree of trust per the WMF's policy.voorts (talk/contributions)21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that an editor needs to show enough competence to be able to read the instructions, and no pattern of something that indicates they might ignore the rules like harassment or outing. A topic ban in itself doesn't indicate they would break the rules at vandalism fighting, given that vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions compared to contentious topics. There's some personal attacks involved in the two sanctions, which gives me a bit more pause.—Femke 🐦 (talk)21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think we should be leaving it to admin discretion with regard to active sanctions, since admins can reasonably disagree as to what sanctions are or are not disqualifying. I think we have some discretion with regard to expired sanctions. For example, in my view the recent block for personal attacks is disqualifying, but if that had happened three years ago, it probably wouldn't be.voorts (talk/contributions)21:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin commentAs a Wikipedian since 2007, I disagree that "vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions." I would hope that hitting rollback on the addition of "ksajdhgkoasdh" to a benign article likeglass ortelephone would not evoke strong emotion in a Wikipedian, but it could evoke stronger emotion if one sees some moron write "Black Politician A is a retarded sodomite who rapes female Muslim Politician B in the butt inside a Jewish synagogue which is across the street from the Holy Mother Mary Catholic Church while screaming Daddy Martin Luther King at the top of her lungs to get bills about abortion passed" on an article, let alone when vandals respond to vandal fighters directly with "your mom" insults, death threats, racist/sexist/Xphobic/otherwise discriminatory garbage, and doxing. Sometimes the vandalism itself is contentious, other times the vandalism may be benign but the subject they're desecrating can be contentious, and it takes thick skin to take some of it with a grain of salt.PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk)16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to grant the TAIV. I see no indication that it's likely to be abused, plus they have a record of AIV reports and so on. I think perhaps some input from the previously involved admins would give an opportunity to raise any concerns that I've missed, but I don't see a topic ban as disqualifying per se. --zzuuzz(talk)22:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin comment) If TAIV was used to reveal the IP of an editor based on edits they've made in the CT/GG space, would that be a topic ban violation? It's not technically anedit as described atWP:TBAN. But if it would be a violation then it'd be very hard to check or enforce since only CUs have TAIV log access.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)23:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BANEXEMPT has exceptions forreverting obvious vandalism or blpvios, reverts can be performed without using TAIV even if deeper investigations cannot. It also specifies that obvious meanscases in which no reasonable person could disagree, and I believe that reasonable people can disagree with a topic banned editor accessing non-public account information in the space they are topic banned from.
I agree that that would be a TBAN violation. Obvious vandalism is obvious in and of itself, without further investigation. So any potential vandalism requiring investigation using TAIV wouldnot be covered byWP:BANEXEMPT. — rsjaffe🗣️20:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify why the investigation touching a banned topic would violate the ban, it is theactions a banned person would take based upon the investigation that would violate the ban. For example, the person may want to delete more, non-obvious, vandalism by a linked account, or the person may want to make a report at AIV pointing out the issue with the IP or with the linked accounts. I can not think of any actions based on investigation of a banned topic using TAIV that would not violate the ban. — rsjaffe🗣️21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Throughoutthe discussion that occurred which established the minimum baseline, a large amount of those participating expressed a desire for the absolute minimum requirements, with some expressing demonstrated need, and some expressing admin discretion to decline. The request ultimately seems to meet both the minimum baseline and a demonstrated need, so the only missing requirement here would be admin discretion. A TBAN in and of itself doesn't necessarily consist of a reason to lack trust in other areas. Hell, we've had administrators with active TBANs, and they still were pretty trustworthy as admins. Also noteworthy is that the topic ban is from early April, with a quick warning a few days later which resolved amicably, but otherwise no further issues noted in the enforcement log. I fail to see how this constitutes a lack of trust.EggRoll97(talk)03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imposed the pblock in question and was part of the consensus that led to the TBAN, which I subsequently issued a warning for violating. I don't see anything in that chain of events that precludes FMSky from being granted TAIV, which per Eggroll andcontra Voorts is something that the WMF has not indicated is a highly trusted role and the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of. FMSky meets the criteria underWP:TAIVGRANT, and while that section gives admins discretion to deny, I don't see any reason that that discretion should be exercised here. The disruption that led to the pblock, TBAN, and warning is wholly unrelated to the kind of misconduct we're worried about with TAIV; I could see declining if it was within the past month or two on the basis that the editor can't be trusted to follow policy, but we have 7 months of evidence that FMSky can follow his ban. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)04:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of [TAIV]" – I don't think this is an accurate description of the situation. TheRfC in question explicitly gave admins discretion in granting and required a "demonstrated need", both of which go beyond the absolute minimum set by the WMF. The close additionally says:There isclear and substantial consensus that admins have the discretion to decline the right even if the requirements are met (emphasis in original). As such, Iendorse Rsjaffe declining to grant TAIV in this case. (This does not mean that another admin would have been wrong to grant TAIV when confronted with the same situation.)Toadspike[Talk]07:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored this from the archive since this probably should be closed by an uninvolved admin, as there is a request for action either in favor of the declination of granting, or in favor of granting.EggRoll97(talk)07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone. I'd like to request a review of my ban on Armenia/Azerbaijan topic (discussion).
Since the ban was placed, I have followed it completely. I focused on other parts of Wikimedia and stayed active on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. My editing there has been stable and productive, and I did not touch the banned topic on English Wikipedia. I understand why the ban was given. Even if I did not agree with every part of the original concerns, I can see why the situation looked suspicious at that time. During these months, I have been careful not to repeat anything that could create the same problems again.
I'm asking for the topic ban to be lifted so that I can work in this area again, especially on historical and cultural subjects where I can contribute high-quality and well-sourced content. I'm not interested in getting involved in unproductive disputes or the kinds of arguments that made this topic contentious in the first place. If a discussion starts heading in that direction, I will step away rather than escalate it.Nemoralis (talk)17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support (full disclosure, i have previously talked to Nemoralis off-wiki about Armenia-Azerbaijan politics, although it's been awhile): Nemoralis is a valuable contributor in one of the most intractably miserable topic areas on enwiki. due to the obscurity of the issue among Anglophones, having editors who can read/write in Armenian or Azeriand don't seek to push nationalist POVs is extremely useful. it's been almost a year since the topic ban was imposed, and i do not see it being necessary to prevent disruption. i would also point to Nemoralis' work on azwiki, where he has done important work on neutrality and better coverage of Armenian issues, such as creatingan azwiki article about Armenian genocide denial....sawyer *any/all *talk17:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support. Nemoralis has complied with their topic ban and edited constructively for a significant period of time. Given that and their statement that they understand why the topic ban was implemented and their assurance that they will step away if it gets too heated rather than escalate I am happy to support the removal of the topic ban.GothicGolem29(Talk)18:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nemoralis was part of a meatpuppet group that did proxy editing for its blocked members, as confirmed by ablock review confirming plenty of CU and technical evidence that this group edited much of the same articles in the same topic areas. Nemoralis's appeal does not acknowledge previous meatpuppet and proxy editing. This also means, by not fully admitting to the previous behaviour, it does not explain how Nemoralis will not continue to proxy edit in this same topic if unbanned.KhndzorUtogh (talk)00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TBF That was two years ago and the block was one year ago - do you think they're playing an incredibly long game?
I'd have expected a bad actor to have given up long before this, but then again I've got myAGF glasses on & maybe that's something that does actually happen...
Comment Something that doesn't sit right with me is that one of the users (Solavirum, now known as ChanisCaucasi) that Nemoralis was proxy editing for has implied that Aliyev's authoritarian regime is keeping an eye on Azerbaijani Wikipedians and even repressing them in a Meta thread related to Nemoralis' block[2]. I recall there being another time when they talked about this here, think it was in a AN/ANI thread, can't find it anymore. There was even a post in Wiki news about the Aliyev regime reaching for Wikipedia[3]. A regime that is notable for being authoritarian, suppressing freedom of press, and engaging in historical falsifications. --HistoryofIran (talk)15:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i admit i'm confused as to why Solavirum's comment about the Azerbaijani government is problematic for Nemoralis' topic ban appeal. i see nothing objectionable in that Meta thread from Solavirum, it's just honest about the risks that Azerbaijani editors face. certainly concerning in a general sense, but is there something i'm missing?...sawyer *any/all *talk16:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have not proxy edited for anyone and I will not do so. As I mentioned before, I didn't realize that my behavior at that time could be misunderstood. Also, the thread on MetaWiki has nothing to do with me. I don't understand what they have to do with this at all.Nemoralis (talk)19:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... you literallydid proxy edit asthe block review showed abundant evidence of. How can you say that you understand why the ban was given while also denying proxy editing? It is hard to believe you will not repeat the same problems if you cannot even admit what they are.KhndzorUtogh (talk)00:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing this topic ban. Nemoralis should be judged on his own merits, and as far as I can see his contributions here and elsewhere have been solid.Toadspike[Talk]07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support - it's been a while since that block review linked above, and HistoryofIran has sort of backed off their initial comments. Nemoralis seems to understand what the issues were that led to the topic ban and has undertaken to stay away from them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)00:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Voting in the Arbitration Committee elections is now open
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some years ago restrictions were imposed on me regarding new article creations and Articles for Deletion discussion participation. How do I go about requesting they be lifted? Thanks.FloridaArmy (talk)22:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FloridaArmy weighing in here not as an admin but as a fellow editor who enjoys working alongside you on the underrepresented pieces of English wikipedia.
I think a successful request would include how you've improved your research and writing, and other ways you've addressed the concerns that were raised that led to the sanctions. It will probably be helpful too to include the link(s) that led to the sanctions so that uninvolved editors or those of us who have forgotten can review.StarMississippi01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Bushranger thanks for the link. I have read through the linked section and the section it links to "above" and I have absolutely no idea what it is you'd like me to do to request my restriction be lifted. Can you please clarify for me?FloridaArmy (talk)02:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FloridaArmy, it's just the paragraph immediately above it, one line up.
It's been several years since the imposition of restrictions on me for making a lot of good faith additions of new entries on notable subjects and participation at Articles for Deletion. I've been working up new subjects in draftspace and will continue to do so before introducing them into mainspace. I understand that the community evolved to expect substantial content and sourcing for new subjects and that very short starts of subjects in mainspace, even if the subject is notable, are no longer allowed. I understand new article subjects with very limited content aren't considered acceptable. I will limit my comments at Articles for Deletion to avoid extended back and forths and simply lay out the sources and reasoning why a subject meets inclusion criteria or the lack thereof that makes the subject fall short in my opinion. Thanks for your kind consideration.FloridaArmy (talk)02:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a (very!) quick look through user Talk - over the past two weeks we have two accepted AFC drafts, seven rejects and two speedy delete nominations (only nominated, not actioned). The most common reason for AFC rejection is sourcing/notability. I've not counted the notifications for old articles because that's most of the Talk page.
If anyone wants the pure figures then here's a link:https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/FloridaArmy. There are no deleted pages until item #87 and a deletion rate of 0.8% overall. Roughly 3 out of 5 are Stub-class, around 1.5 out of 5 are Start-class.
Honestly, this might be useless info but I found it interesting & figured I may as well write it down on the off-chance that is actually helpful for someone.Blue Sonnet (talk)05:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue-Sonnet I don't think those speedies were correctly tagged (misclick, not deliberate human action). From the history with edits to reset G13, I don't think they were true G2s and nothing in article or @FloridaArmy's editing history indicates any tests. I'll drop a note on @Liz's talk since I mentioned her here, but 99% sure those two shouldn't be held against FA. Love the data you pulled.StarMississippi13:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! They didn't look right to me so I thought I'd better add that little disclaimer.
Here are the last ten reviewed articles, these should make it a bit easier for everyone to assess the appeal (accepted articles are in italics):
Draft:Samuel W. Chubbuck - single sentence article, moved to draft by another editor after being created in mainspace
Just wanted to note that the Open University of Sudan draft wasn't created or heavily edited by FloridaArmy (who only made very small edits to it) before they submitted it. I don't think FloridaArmy used any LLMs in that article. I don't know if they use LLMs or not but I figure from a very quick skim and what I vaguely remember it's way more likely they don't. Sorry if I haven't signed in (this is a temporary account), hoping it'll automatically sign my post.~2025-35897-41 (talk)00:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep the LLM part isn't really explained - I included it since the person submitting the article is confirming that they feel the draft meets the criteria for inclusion as a full article, ergo they've checked and verified that it's ready to be included in mainspace.Blue Sonnet (talk)03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to miss that the issue was not just about length, but about the amount of cleanup needed on what was there. Looking atDraft:E. O. Rothra, it was submitted to AfC while still having editing notes, and bare urls are still being used (some were caught by citationbot).CMD (talk)16:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose lifting these restrictions in part due to FloridaArmy's behavior withLuther Palmer House where I have most interacted with them. I brough it to AfD atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendleton Hill due to lacking notability; it was closed as redirect. After the close, FloridaArmy left arather odd message on my talkpage. They then moved the redirected article to draftspace and submitted it to AfCalmost unchanged from the version that was redirected. Despite the unchanged prose, they submitted it with a new title - that of a (likely notable) house that is scarcely mentioned in the prose. The article, which I believe should have not been accepted at AfC, has basic citation issues including bare URLs, incorrect parameters, and non-RS that I specifically pointed out in the DR.
In the drafts linked above by BlueSonnet, I don't see any indication that FloridaArmy has improved their editing in any way. One of the drafts was created in mainspace in violation of their editing restriction; they already have two blocks for previous violations. Of the two accepted drafts,Henry Carey Baird has numerous incomplete or improperly formatted references, andAl-Mazmum neededsignificant cleanup by the AfC reviewer. These are issues I would expect to see with newer editors, not someone with 200,000 edits over 9 years who knows that asking for a lifting of restrictions will put scrutiny on their recent edits.Pi.1415926535 (talk)22:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I tagged a draft as a CSD G2, that shouldn't be held against FA. Consider that an oversight on my part. I look at hundreds of expiring drafts on a daily basis and sometimes drafts get mistagged. It's more likely my fault than FAs. I do see a lot of incomplete drafts they've created but G13 deletion is often postponed for several very prolific editors and FA is one of them.LizRead!Talk!05:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Arbitration Committee is consideringa motion to amend its procedures to allow the use ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE) for community-imposed general sanctions, if the community also assigns those requests to AE. Comments on the motion are welcome atthe amendment request.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at thetalk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
With the advent of the newTemporary accounts, are we ok with treating them as an individual user when blocking? The point is, with a previous IP Address we couldn't block indefinitely as it could be multiple different users posting under that IP, so blocks were always limited in length of time. Are we confident this is an individual user,? Can we issue Indef blocks on them, if warranted? Clarification would be helpful. Thanks. --Alexf(talk)10:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I've correctly understood (always a big 'if') these TA's, they're disposable, ie. issued once-only. They also expire after 90 days, so indef in practice means temporary anyway. And since that same TA isn't reissued to anyone else, there wouldn't seem to be any risk of collateral damage to innocent users? --DoubleGrazing (talk)11:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexf @DoubleGrazing Yes, you can indef block TAs just as you would block regular accounts. Though the account will expire within 90 days, the difference between a temporary block and an indef block can be important for issues like later block evasion.Toadspike[Talk]11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I'm finding I'm having to block multiple times for one person now: The temporary account(s), and the underlying IPs which sometimes create multiple TAs. One IP can easily create a half dozen TAs by clearing cache, meaning it would take 7 blocks to do what used to be able to be done with one block. This also means I now have to check the underlying IP for every TA that needs a block. This has actually increased the workload for admins; sometimes minor, sometimes in a larger way.Dennis Brown -2¢23:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Preach! It really puts the 'TA' inPITA. Also, there's a much greater chance of inadvertendly linking TAs to IPs as you toggle between the two when making blocks. --Ponyobons mots00:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown Yougenerally only have to block the most recent TA and the IP. @Ponyo No need to worry about that – the Foundation has given us permission to make back-to-back TA and IP blocks, even if this would implicitly reveal the IP of a TA.Toadspike[Talk]06:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't yet, you are going to find some IPs that actually have several TAs associated with them, and they are the same person. Easiest way is in a history of like minded edit warring reverts with an IP that clears their cache each session. Not sure if there is a way to find the reverse, which TAs are associated with a given IP< I assume that is a CU only tool. Trust me, if you patrol pages long enough, you will see what I'm talking about. I'm more inclined to just ignore the TAs and strike the IP undernearth, except then no one knows the TA was technically blocked.Dennis Brown -2¢08:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that once the cache is cleared, the older TAs can no longer be used, so there's no point in blocking them.Generally... And yes, simply blocking the IP is more efficient, but doesn't leave much of a paper trail. The benefit of back-to-back blocks is that we can reconstruct the IP info of a TA once it expires (after 90 days).Toadspike[Talk]08:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: You can see all TA edits from an IP atSpecial:IPContributions. When you click on the IP that's revealed next to a TA, this should be what shows up. This even works on ranges, up to the rangeblock limit (/16 for IPv4, /19 for IPv6). I'd also recommend turning on auto-reveal if you haven't already. Saves a lot of clicks and the WMF has not set any particular standard admins need to meet to do that. (Once you have auto-reveal on, the IPs you reveal don't even get logged anymore.) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin knows what they're talking about of course, but I feel I can add a nerdy clarification (as checkusers have access to this new log). Revealing IPs doesn't get logged while auto‑reveal is enabled, however, Special:IPContributions does still do some logging. That is, "viewed temporary accounts on [IP/range]" continues to be logged, whereas "viewed IP addresses for [TA]" is not logged. I don't know if that's a bug or feature, and don't really concern myself about it - it's one of the most uninteresting logs I've seen. But now you know. --zzuuzz(talk)12:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll out-nerd you with the quirk that setting auto-reveal applies globally (if you have a perm that grants global TAIV) but is logged only on the wiki where you do it. So when my current 90-day allowance expires, I could go reënable auto-reveal on, say,the Piedmontese Wikisource, and the only people able to see that would be stewards happening to check that wiki's log. You'd then see me in the enwiki log appearing to access TAs-from-IP but not IPs-from-TA, despite it appearing that my auto-reveal had expired. Apparently this is not a bug since the information is still loggedsomewhere, even if it's somewhere no one would ever look, and the only people this is ever expected to be of interest to are government regulators enforcing privacy laws, not CUs or stewards or OmbComm. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)12:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The harder thing to avoid, which I've almost done once or twice, and which Ponyo might be referring to, is putting a behavior-specific rationale like "vandalism onExample" in the block form for the IP, when that can only go with the TA. Someone really worried about this could probably do some CSS styling to have a different color on TA contribs versus IP. Worst-case scenario, though, an inadvertent disclosure is easily remedied via log deletion. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely going to be accidental disclosure, it is unavoidable. We are compelled to justify each block, and it's better to do so in the log than trying to simple remember every block. It's part of WP:accountability, so we will see how this pans out. Thanks for the tip above, btw.Dennis Brown -2¢10:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely sorry for my prior actions and all of the problems I caused as well as the time I took up of those people. I promise that I haven’t tried to edit Wikipedia or make an account in the past 6 months. Back when I got blocked, I was making edits to pages that I thought needed to be edited as well as trying the templates on each of those pages. I was very curious about it back then and didn’t realize how much of an issue and impact it had by me doing that. I was also obsessed with power and wanted to do anything I could to get some sort of access level about everyone else. I did it because I was bored and I found Wikipedia and wanted to explore and somewhat mess around. Since then, I have realized how what I have done has caused many people to take a lot of time out of their days to deal with me. The edits I have been wanting to make have been around my county, town, and some of the businesses in my town listed there. I have gone through a lot of history things about my town and want to be able to share them with anyone whom is interested in reading it. To everyone who had to deal with me in the past and now, I have no words to express how sorry I am for the actions I have done.Elijah Wilder (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adiscussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN) has reached a consensus that topic bans should be imposed. How should this be progressed further? The guidance on the COIN does not explain how to proceed once consensus that a COI exists has been achieved.cagliost (talk)09:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) PerWP:CBAN,Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Put it another way: not at WP:COIN.—Fortuna,imperatrix10:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These users continually strongly insist that we legitimately base the phonological charts of this article off of a source that is a bit dated and also poorly written when it came to the articulation of the palatal consonants, and also a had listed a supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" that is clearly non-existent according to the newer sources. They keep insisting we literally base the chart off of the old source's word-for-word description of the palatal consonant sounds (which they insist is a pure-palatal stop /cç/, /si/ allophone being a pure-palatal fricative [ç]). When meanwhile, newer sources (like Temsunungsang, 2021; Bruhn, 2010) list the sounds as palato-alveolar /tʃ/, [ʃ], and the supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" actually being an alveolar approximant /ɹ/. But yet any newer source I point too, they immediately criticize and delegitimize, just because the sources are not written like they would be as a phonological-description, like the main source they keep pointing to (Gowda 1972). Sure it would be much better if the newer sources were a phonological-description, but the more I imply that we should "work with what we have at the moment", the more they get pedantic and resistant and continue to promote the transcriptions of the older and poorly-written source. I have listened to several different speakers of the language, and based off of the audio, their pronunciation exactly matches what the newer sources state, rather than what the older sources state. Any assistance from an admin here would be quite helpful to solve this conundrum.Fdom5997 (talk)19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to take every word verbatim. Sometimes linguists use the term “palatal” to either shorten the term “palato-alveolar”, or when broadly speaking since it is still considered to be partially palatal.Fdom5997 (talk)12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In his 2025 paper he refers to the Changki affricate as palato-alveolar, so I can only assume he knew what he was talking about. Reinterpreting isWP:OR ~oklopfer (💬)12:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why Temsunungsang has been reached out to for clarification. Trying to force this through an administrative process is only time wasting for everyone. Learn some patience, please. ~oklopfer (💬)12:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t you learn some patience and be open to other sources of info, that users would want to temporarily use during the waiting process that are still fairly accurate. Besides your own, which may not be consistent with newer sources.Fdom5997 (talk)13:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are reinterpreting those sources, which is antithetical to building an encyclopedia. If the paper does not say palato-alveolar, you cannot either. ~oklopfer (💬)13:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with reinterpreting, as long as it is feasible. And in this case it is. You just can’t help yourself because you are way too rigid and stubborn.Fdom5997 (talk)13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admins can't weigh in on content disputes on admin noticeboards (that's not what they're for), plus this really looks likeforum shopping. I've already gone into the appropriate options for resolutionhere and none of those involved AN.
I double checked my post just in case I wasn't clear, but I really think I was.
I definitely said you should be exploring either dispute resolution or third opinion processes - I also included links to both so you could easily find out more about them, decide on an option then get the ball rolling.
The reason it doesn't belong at ANI is because those other processes exist and haven't been tried yet.
If an editor refuses to engage with dispute resolution for example, that would be a different matter and could be considered a behavioural problem - admins deal with these behavioural problems, not content disputes.
They're volunteers too and have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise they'd never be able to get anything done!
Wikipedia content is decided by editor debate and consensus, that's normal and happens every day. People disagree on content so we have processes to sort that out without needing to bother admins.
Admins deal with editors who can't/won't engage with this set process. That's not normal and needs intervention.
Some time has passed since my t-banSpecial:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos. I would like to see if this ban can be narrowed (to maybe just the specific article) or even removed. Five years has passed since the offense and I am apologetic about it and think I have demonstrated good behavior since then. Particularly I would like to just get the ban narrowed so I don't accidently run afoul of it, as I do like to edit Asia topics. I don't have any particular interest in topics in the offending country, I rather was uncivil on this particular article. Since this offense I have learned to use noticeboards or talk pages more when dealing with what I feel is BLP issues on a page of a former politician. Thanks!Jtbobwaysf (talk)06:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's page seems to be some sort of scam, someone might be trying to pass the user page as a legitimate article. Of the 4 contributions outside of user-space, two of them are also spam.
This doesn't fit neatly at AIV or UAA, and I probably could have filed a G11, but I wasn't sure that was it. This user isn't actively vandalizing mainspace, but they seem to be here to run some sort of scam, and not build an encyclopedia. Unless it's all an elaborate joke that I'm not getting.Mlkj (talk)21:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciate the 2nd opinion. Incidentally I thinkU7 doesn't apply to top-level user-pages anyways, butG3 is a good fit, I'll rememberG3 for next time.Mlkj (talk)21:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My local ipblockexempt userright is not needed anymore
The IP range block that affects me was recently made global across all projects, so I now have a global exemption for it. Therefore I no longer need it locally here on en-wp and request it removed.Rose Abrams (TCL)14:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user @ChildrenWillListen has falsely accused me of writing a Wikipedia page with an LLM. I have tried to discuss this with him via replacing references, but he has tagged the page for speedy deletion twice. I feel this is unacceptable behaviour which is why I am bringing it up. 🇳🇿Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿06:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
