I have taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and its policies. I have studiedWP:RS,WP:OR andWP:GNG and will ensure to follow them.I commit that I will not publish userspace drafts to circumvent the block, and I will not create mainspace articles except through AfC. I will prioritize modern secondary sources, revise my existing drafts and use AfC before any move to mainspace.I am willing to present two drafts I have made for review if that would help.Thank you.Kolno (talk)11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support After thinking about it overnight I am minimally satisfied by this although I do note that Kolno seems to have been seeking somebody to have a look at one of their old drafts not long ago. I could honestly be swayed one way or the other but I tend to lean towardWP:ROPE when someone has been under a block for a while. It's been five months. Let's see if they've learned their lesson.Simonm223 (talk)14:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)Support, obviously will defer to admins but I think this is a good appeal. Willing to AGF re creating drafts while blocked, seems like an understandable misunderstanding. I do have concern over some of their articles, for instanceZimbabwean–Portuguese conflicts which appears to be totalWP:SYNTH, and some of the articles based on old/primary sources actually passed through AFC. I’d ask Kolno to take a look atWP:HISTRS, but happy for them to get a second chance.Kowal2701 (talk)18:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In anychallenge to the closure of a formal discussion within theWP:GENSEX topic area, users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. (See details.)
An uninvolved administrator may restrict participation in an arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) noticeboard thread to certain users. (See details.)
Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.
Colin andSamuelshraga are indefinitely banned from transgender healthcare, broadly construed, and areadmonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.
Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards andadmonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
The arbitration clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner.
Past clerks have gone on to be(or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for clerks rival that of arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a coolfez!
Please emailclerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you. Editors are also encouraged to reach out to any active clerk to discuss their suitability, the clerk's experiences, and any other questions that may be helpful to address.
I ended up with this page on my watchlist because there was a conflict there and I went in as a neutral party to try and de-escalate. As I do tend to watch pages about Asian history this kind of ended up lumped into that subset of my page-watching and I've noticed a very strange recurring pattern where, every few months or so, a new set of IP (or recently joined) editors will approach the article and try to revise the POV to minimize the influence this figure wielded. I am unsure whether this is a single person or group of people with a revolving IP or whether it's a collection of editors all of whom have concerns with the page. Generally, when I've seen this sort of comportment at the page of an historical figure, it's because of competing nationalisms. But I haven't seen any nationalistic project that would seek to reduce the historical relevance of powerful women in the Ottoman Empire. And I have looked. All this is to say that this has become both something where I suspect chicanery but where I find myself unequal to the task of figuring out exactly what is going on besides "something suspicious." I've been somewhat of the position of just trying to maintain the status-quo on the article since waves of IPs who seem to be motivated by a POV generally lead to instability but I'm not even sure if this is the best approach here anymore because I can't figure out what exactly it is that drives this POV. If the article is just wrong but for some reason only IP editors have any interest in fixing it... well that would be a very unusual circumstance but I can't rule it out. Anyway this is definitely not an emergency nor do I think it's something that could be resolved by sanctioning an editor. It's not vandalism and while there might beWP:LOUT going on I certainly don't know who the master would be. But also there's something weird going on here and I feel like there's something I'm not seeing. So I figured this might be a venue to at least get alternate eyes on it.Simonm223 (talk)12:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m writing because when I became an admin, and later an arbitrator, it was my intent to do everything possible to protect the community that I belong to and love. I work for that community, not for the WMF. Also, when I ran for the committee I committed to providing transparency whenever possible. The recent incident at WCNA 2025 has pushed me into breaking the ANPDP in order to make sure the community that I serve is safe, and has all the information they need to make informed decisions about their continued safety.
On February 20th, I blocked Gapazoid, who is Connor Weston, the person who brandished a firearm and threatened suicide at the conference. Any oversighter can look at their user page, which I suppress deleted at the time, to verify this. The Arbitration Committee is also aware of his name as he appealed my block to the committee via email. I blocked them for child protection/pedophilia advocacy. I also immediately emailed WMF Trust and Safety, seeking and expecting a WMF ban. The following day Risker pulled talk page access due to continued disruption. They were already blocked on Wiktionary for the same reason.
For the next several months I pressed with every tool at my disposal for a WMF ban. This included discussion on several Arbitration Committee calls with the foundation. My fellow arbs joined me in pushing for this ban. It was such a sticking point between the committee and the foundation that the WMF held a “Process sync” call on June 24th for us to explain how T&S makes decisions about WMF bans.
During this process, on April 25th, Weston sent an email to the info queue saying they were going to travel to the WMF offices to protest my block. The message states, in full:
<information redacted>
This email was forwarded to T&S who verified receipt. I am also aware that information regarding Weston threatening suicide was sent to T&S.
On August 11th they closed the case, along with a second child protection case, with no action. To quote the email sent to me personally in response to my initial report:
Having carefully weighed the evidence, we found no indication that Gapazoid’s contributions amount to advocacy or encouragement of illicit activity.
In their response to the Committee they said:
We recognize that taking no action in these cases may not fully align with what ArbCom expects or hopes the WMF's role to be in situations of child safety concerns, particularly given the importance and sensitivity of child safety matters on the platform and the fact that you, ArbCom, have been trusting the Foundation for years to handle these matters. The fact is, however, that while the community can sanction based solely on its own judgement, the Foundation must be able to legally defend our decisions to take action, including their consistency with our policies over time. This includes the need to have evidence of a risk of harm that violates our policies. We don’t think that either of the above two examples would be successful in meeting that standard.
This decision allowed a suicidal pedophile who threatened to travel in-person to WMF headquarters to protest a block to gain access to an in-person meeting of our community. Even if they didn’t plan on using a gun to end their life in front of all of us, this would still be unacceptable.
In the weeks and months leading up to the convention the committee and other members of the community brought up concerns about event security, and were assured that appropriate security measures would be taken. At the event there was essentially no security. No bag checks and no checks with a metal detector or wand. After the incident there was an increased presence of security personnel and bag screenings, but no additional searching or screening of carried belongings.
Every member of the community deserves, and absolutely must be given, the ability to make informed decisions about their safety within the community. The WMF is responsible for taking every reasonable action to keep our community safe. In this case, they made the unreasonable decision of not banning a suicidal pedophile who had made clear their intent to protest a community block in person, and in doing so explicitly allowed the incident at WCNA to occur. The foundation’s actions put everyone attending the conference in life-threatening danger. Thankfully, due to members of our community, the worst case was avoided, but this was in spite of the WMF’s decisions and actions.
From a personal perspective, before I left to attend the conference my wife expressed concern for my safety. She’s aware of the anti-abuse work I do, and the threats of harm and death that come along with that. I told her, based on the WMF’s assurances, that it was safe for me to attend, they planned on having enhanced security, and she didn’t have a need to worry. Days later I would be sending her messages after evacuating the conference due to a suicidal man that I’d blocked from Wikipedia months earlier charging the stage with a gun. As soon as he began speaking, I recognized with horror who it was. I immediately informed WMF employees on-site. I was not informed that Weston would be attending, and either T&S didn’t screen the attendees or screened the list and let this pass. Either situation is completely unacceptable.
Thankfully, no one was physically hurt. Due to heroism by members of our own community, the threat was mitigated, but that doesn’t mitigate the trauma we all suffered. It is essential that nothing like this ever happen again, and because of that the community must be aware of the extent of the failures that occurred. The community did everything right in this situation, from blocking a pedophile, reporting it to T&S, forwarding the suicide threats and intention to protest in person, and pushing in every conceivable way for a WMF ban, and due to systemic failures from the WMF we were almost all party to an incredible tragedy.
This statement is published with the consent of the majority of active, non-recused members of the Arbitration Committee.
This is something that has tickled the back of my brain for awhile, and a recent RFPP request regardingWP:GS/KURD - which mandatesextended confirmed restrictions for the topic area - foran article not currently being disrupted has pushed me over the edge to ask about this. As part of the protection policy, we are not supposed to preemptively protect articles, except within certain topic areas where it is permitted. One of these being the formerWP:GSCASTE area, now part ofWP:CT/SA, whichexplictly says articles within it may be preemptively protected, with the topic areabeing under ECR. The thing is, a topic placed under under ECR is underde factoextended confirmed protection. Is it therefore acceptable to "preemptively" place articles in a ECR topic area underde jure (actual) ECP? I would in a vaccuum say yes (again, ECR isfunctionally ECP, just with the added step of being "manually enforced"), but the CT/SA clause #5 specifically calling out GSCASTE as being permitted for preemptive protection, when it's also under ECR, makes me wonder, especially whenWP:CT/IMH, also part of CT/SA, is not called out as such. I suppose this could be a case where multiple, unrelated remedies passed in the ArbComm case, but figured best to ask to be sure. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: It'srelated, but not quite - the locus there wasAll articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article. Which applies certainly to PIA, but what aboutWP:CT/IMH,WP:GS/A-A andWP:GS/KURD?@Voorts: I'd ask there, but some of the areas in question arenot ArbCom-imposed ECR/ECP (A-A and KURD are both ECR-ified by the community GS, not the ArbCom CT). -The BushrangerOne ping only00:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, while looking upWP:BLUELOCK related to the thread below, I seeWhen [ECR] is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection (echoed atWP:ARBECR), which I suppose answers my question and I feel silly for not having checked there first. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No but bothWP:GS/KURD andWP:GS/A-A say "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." Possibly this was missed if searching since it doesn't use the word preemptive but it implies it.Nil Einne (talk)07:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the restriction:"If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced throughextended confirmed protection, though this is not required."
TheWP:PP § Extended confirmed restriction section is in effect:"Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required".
Remedy text:"Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by [the topic area]when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption."
Remedy text:"All articles whose topic is strictly within [the topic area]shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article."
When an article is subject to both ECR and the preemptive protection remedy (e.g. all articles aboutSouth Asian social groups), the preemptive protection remedy functions as encouragement to apply ECR preemptively, but does not require it.Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection § As arbitration enforcement provides an answer to your question:"Administrators may apply indefinite extended confirmed protection at any time to any page covered by ECRat their discretion, whether or not there has been disruptive editing on the page." (Disclosure: I recently updated the language on that page, but did not change this sentence.) According to this, your extended confirmed protection of the articlePeople's Defence Forces is acceptable. — Newslingertalk08:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the previous talk page edits on the /42 of that IP were by this person; some of that stuff is revdel'd, so I'm assuming it was disruptive like this current one, and the non revdel'd ones are "trump is a racist" and "trump is a rapist"; the range to block should bethe /46. Blocking the /42 isn't a bad idea either though, it doesn't appear to be that active. Swift closure ofTalk:Sean Combs#Requested move 23 October 2025 is another thing to be done. An eye might want to be kept on the /32.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)21:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the /64 for 72 hours and rv'd/hatted the RMs. I'm hesitant to hit any of the larger ranges just yet, since this is the first activity on the /46 since August. But if they do continue to use that /46, starting with maybe a month's rangeblock would be reasonable given the lack of collateral damage. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)21:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Propose aWP:CBAN (which happens automatically if this discussion upholds the block) and furthermore, propose revoking talk page access. Reasonable people may agree with the first and disagree with the second part of this proposal. --Yamla (talk)10:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN and removal of talk page access. Having read the initial post in question and the talk page. User continued disruption on their talk page. They doubled down and refused toWP:DROPTHESTICK. They evoked "Free speech." (always a bad sign.) They are clearly advocating for pedophilia. (Anyone who wants to read a sad story-- email me.)---- Deepfriedokra (talk)10:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable as the blocking admin. My block was also based on the lack of stick dropping after being warned. They were NOTHERE blocked from 2018-2023. Since they were unblocked, they made ~100 edits. Side note, the block was lifted with the condition "ONLY FOR EDITING MATHS AND PHYSICS ARTICLES" (emph. original). Trolling about child protection is outside of those bounds. --GuerilleroParlez Moi10:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Wikipedia haszero tolerance for posts like the ones that user made. If they are unwilling to drop the stick, it's time we all collectively show them the door. This is the last thing we need after that incident.QuicoleJR (talk)20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this Yamla. I don't really vote in ban discussions, but I have no objections to this person being banned. They still seem to have no idea why what they said was the exact wrong thing to say at the exact wrong moment; instead they seem to think this is a "free speech" issue. Making such a comment at any workplace on Earth would get you quickly fired.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)20:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. In addition to the points raised above, their comments are blatant violations of their first and third unblock conditions[3]. They promised not to do this and they did it anyway. That is a serious breach of trust.Toadspike[Talk]22:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN I'm as a general rule opposed to banning people over one spat, so came across this expecting to either sigh or futilely oppose, but this isn't that; this is someone whose produced a lot more heat than light over their entire career.* Pppery *it has begun...02:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN. Regardless of whether this user is sincere in their beliefs or if they're here to troll us, their postings have clearly been disruptive on multiple occasions and have been a drain on the community's patience, as their block log and talk page history indicates. I think they need a break from Wikipedia for a while.MaterialsPsych (talk)05:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see thespi. this is a returning sock with a habit of parroting stuff other people say, with the only consistent pattern being the end result being disruptive gibberish. they also nominated the redirect the last time as well. if someone could just get this over with, i'd be thankful
but really, the parroting got so out of hand that they repeated themself (and the rest of the sock drawer), fell into self-repetition (and of the other socks), and repeated its (and the fellow socks') own claims, what the hell is going on?consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)01:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aesurias: Next time this happens you should simply move the page back instead of draftifying the redirect, which makes the problem hard to fix. For some reason, non-page movers are able to overwrite redirects if they do so quickly.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)02:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the first thing I tried to do, it didn't work for some reason. Probably something on my end if it usually works. Sorry, hope it was able to be resolvedAesurias (talk)02:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I also messed up a page move because I tried to clear the redirect by moving it to somewhere else. I haven't really looked into how MediaWiki handles pages moves but the logic is likely quite complex.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)02:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that if A redirects to B and has only one revision then you can move A to B as a non-page-mover. Page movers can bypass the "redirects to B" part of that, and move over any one-revision redirect (in addition to being able to vacate any title by moving it without a redirect). Admins can move over everything, of course.* Pppery *it has begun...03:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true as a technical matter. But I don't think it's a major problem; a vandal making enough of a stink can already force an admin to block them, or protect a page, or whatever so the fact that they can force an admin to undo their move isn't much worse.phab:T62383 and its many duplicates suggest people don't like that behavior, though.* Pppery *it has begun...04:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to appeal my block regarding filespace, as perWP:SO guidelines. I apologize for my past behavior and realize that I was overly strict and sensitive about file uploads and reverts.
In the past, I engaged in edit wars when others reverted or renewed my changes, believing that the files I uploaded were correct and problem-free. I also made improvements to other users' uploaded files, but when I was reverted, it escalated into further conflict as I continued to revert.
When others ignored my good faith efforts I reciprocated in kind. I should have stopped reverting and instead opened a discussion to resolve the issue. I take responsibility for my part in the escalation. My mental state was bad during that time until i ignore the Wikipedia rules due to my temper. It's so stupid of me to think it's fair.Over the block for 6 months, I've reflected on my actions, worked on becoming more mature, and committed to changing my behavior. I've used the time to read and familiarize myself with guidelines. I'm determined to be more responsible and open to discussion in the future. I promise to refrain from repetitive reverts. I'm committed to showing you a better side of myself moving forward and promise to behave more constructively in the future. I will also provide an edit summary. I apologize for my past actions that caused a burden to some users.𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk)15:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a longer baseline of unproblematic edits before lifting that restriction. I'd also like to know what you were doing in your sandbox with all those single character edits earlier.SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing... I was just bored and did that to relieve stress. I only did it this one time. If I'm wrong, I'm really really sorry, and I won't do that again.𝙰𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊(talk)16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Guess I'll throw the first bolded one down? This seems fine, honestly, and I don't see the problem with the sandbox edits. It's not like they're gaming anything with it, since they're already extended confirmed.EggRoll97(talk)23:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed temporary adminning restriction on UtherSRG
We've arrived at a situation without precedent concerning admin conduct during the admin recall process.UtherSRG has hada recall petition certified against him, and plans to seek reelection inthe next admin elections (which means he will remain an administrator for at least 51 days), but during this pendency has again violated the same admin policies that led to multiple successive noticeboard threads[4][5][6] and ultimately the recall petition, and has refused to self-revert.
Namely, the main complaint in the recall petition was a series ofWP:INVOLVED blocks, particularly regarding people Uther had content disputes with on species articles (a topic area he also was blocked a few times for edit-warring inlong ago). One involved block that was overlooked in those threads (AFAICS) was that of2605:59C0:20C0:3E08::/64, which came immediately after Uther reverted two of its edits toPygmy rabbit (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), an articlehe has edited substantively starting in 2006 and continuing after his block of the IP. While the recall petition was ongoing, a different IP,2601:346:900:C690::/64, made the same edit; two minutes after the recall petition was closed, Uther protected the article with the summaryIP hopper repeatedly making the same reverted edit. (The edit had also been reverted once byCriticize with the first IP and once byReconrabbit with the second.) PerGreenLipstickLesbian'sanalysis, while the reverts may have been justifiable, this was a content dispute concerning good-faith edits using a term found in reliable sources; while some kind of "communication is required" block or protection might have been justified, it would have needed to come from an uninvolved admin (and personally I don't think I would have done so). Sockpuppetry might bring the protection into "any reasonable admin" territory, except that the initial block was itself INVOLVED, and I'm not actually convinced the two IPs are the same person—Starlink geolocation isn't that reliable, but at face value it puts them on different sides of the U.S., and 2605 is near-exclusively species-oriented while 2601 isn't.
GLL has challenged Uther on this action, andhis response does not show any understanding that this is yet another INVOLVED action, instead giving a response that blurs his role as an editor of the article and as an admin, and sayingI find it very difficult to consider what people think about my admin actions vice providing stability to an article, which seems like a rejection ofWP:ADMINACCT.Asilvering has seconded this challenge, and Uther has continued to edit without response. As such, I do think some kind of intervention is needed. I don't like saying that, because I've always had pleasant interactions with Uther, but this is a problem that does not seem to be stopping on its own.
If I were able to partially block Uther from making blocks or protections, I would, but that's not one of the available pblock settings. I considered a siteblock, and considered taking this to ArbCom, but I think the path of least resistance here is a temporary community-imposed restriction, to stabilize the situation so that AdE voters can decide for themselves in December. Therefore I propose the following:
Until the conclusion of theDecember 2025 admin elections, UtherSRG is banned from using theblock andprotect tools, except to reverse or reduce previous blocks or protections he has made. Any violation of this restriction should be referredto the Arbitration Committee.
Oppose Such a restriction doesn't seem conducive to being able to accurately evaluate Uther's behavior between now and the admin elections, which is already under a lot of scrutiny and will probably continue to be as much. Protection isn't used often, and while the change toAfrican pygmy mouse could be overzealous, the same toEuropean mole seemed fine. --Reconrabbit19:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that Uther has ~48 days to get his act together until the discussion phase for AELECT begins, where his actions will be looked through for one last time until the vote phase, where his fate will be determined.(Non-administrator comment)fanfanboy(blocktalk)21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sarek. The line of least resistance if an admin is running amok is an email to Arbcom for a level 2 desysop. Am not aware of evidence that Arbcom is too slow or unwilling to act when these kind of actions are warranted. --Euryalus (talk)22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We've forced Uther to make a request to remain an admin(We really need a word that encompasses retaining adminship via RRFA and EFA...) If he makes good blocks in the interim, why is it a problem? If he makes bad blocks in the interim, I don't think this makes it likelier for ARBCOM to desysop under level 2. I stand by what I said at BN, which is that a temporary desysop is the way around this. I'm working on such a proposal but won't be upset if I'm pre-empted.Vanamonde93 (talk)23:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged, so I feel I ought to respond, but I'm of pretty mixed and ambivalent feelings. I'd like to be able to agree with Reconrabbit. I don't know that I can. --asilvering (talk)03:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanamonde93. This proposal is not completely unreasonable, but it is speculative. What the admin issaying is a little troubling, but that's ultimately part of why they have been recalled. The admin hasdone essentially nothing since being recalled. As others have said, should that change, a block or desysop would be available.Arcticocean ■12:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the equivalent of telling someone they're fired but giving them time to clear out their desk. Versus the Arbcom route which fires you and then has security escort you out. --Euryalus (talk)|
It doesn't in my book. For my area, the first half of RECALL is a petition and the second half is an election. Someone creates a proposal and passes it around in an attempt to get the signatures required for the proposal to appear in the next election. If it succeeds, then (as long as the state legislature does not intervene) the proposal is added to the next scheduled election to be voted on. --Super Goku V (talk)05:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair enough interpretation, and I guess is what happens on de-wiki which our model is based on. On observing the way recall works on en-wp the petition itself is the definitive step. No problems with that: different wikis different customs. But apologies for sidetracking this overall thread, this is probably better discussed at the recall talkpage. --Euryalus (talk)06:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: successful recalls require the admin in question to commit to a re-election within 30 days. If they don't, at the end of the 30 days their tools are removed by the bureaucrats. In Uther's case, as the December adminstrator elections are only a very short time after the expiration of that 30 days, there's a general mood in the community that they would be allowed to run for (re-)election as part of it instead of a seperate RRfA. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the opposes above make reasonable arguments, my counterargument is thus:let's give UtherSRG the chance to redeem or damn themselves before the RFA -we already have. The recall was because of repeated instances ofthis exact behavior; enoughWP:ROPE has already been expended to tie up a small elephant. They have demonstrated, thoroughly, that they either do not intend to change their ways, or cannot; while requesting anemergency dysospping as suggested might be an option at this point, until or unless that is done, this is still a viable, and sadly reasonable given the demonstrated behavior, option. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - mostly for his own sake - as The Bushranger says, we've been here before. And, I don't know, maybe I've been influenced too much by the afterschool specials of my childhood, but at this point I'm convinced that the only way UtherSRG will be able to admin in the future is if the community forces him to spend a bit of time relying on his words when dealing with editors he doesn't agree with, rather than letting him take shortcuts with advanced permissions.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋18:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards support for the sake of ensuring that the block/protect tools can no longer be used while they are under the cloud of the recall, but given how we are about a month from the election, I'm not sure how effectively this proposal will be in practice. Even if this RFC is able to find consensus for support (which given Bush and GLL's !votes above I could see happening), that could take days or a few weeks to form, which closes the gap until the election when the community would decided whether they still trust their tool use. In the event that we need to invoke this and bring ArbCom into this, it's possible that the election happens before ArbCom makes a decision making this moot (unless the election results in them keeping adminship but ArbCom later decides to revoke them), but I'm not too knowledgeable on how long ArbCom would need to act on something like this.Gramix13 (talk)21:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom can act very quickly (a day or two?) to a level 2 desysop request. But it would probably require more evidence of tool misuse than has been presented here, which is possibly why no request has been made. That's not a criticism of the successful recall, simply that the criteria are slightly different. An admin can lose the community's trust and be fired without necessarily also meeting Arbcom's emergency standard for inappropriate use of the tools. --Euryalus (talk)22:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To start, I madeMOS:LISTGAP changes to resolve LISTGAP concerns - specifically removing blank lines and changing all indents to start with an asterisk. I'm making that clear since this edit will contain that along with this reply. On that note, Islightly oppose this - though I don't think Tamzin is wrong to have suggested this. Others have made the arguments I would've made - to summarize however, if it's this urgent, thenWP:LEVEL2 is thataway. If it'snot that urgent at this time, then I don't think there's any community action needed.WP:HOLES has already been referenced, and I agree with that - if this admin wishes to keep digging their hole, let's let them. Any harm they may cause (i.e. if they keep digging their hole through improper blocks/etc) can be quickly reversed by any other admin. Even if this admin may not qualify for L2 procedures right now, they are always available and I suspect ArbCom will be quite willing to consider L2 removal if this admin engages in any egregious conduct between now and their admin election. Any editor should be free (as always) to request L2 procedures if they feel this conduct (or future conduct) merits it. But if it doesn't rise to the level of meriting L2 removal, then I don't think this sort of community restriction is merited.Either conduct rises to the level of recall or ArbCom deadminship (whether through level 1 or 2), or it doesn't. The community has decided that, if something doesn't rise to the level of L1/2 deadminship via ArbCom, that the current recall process is how it should work. The current recall process does not provide any method for the community to restrict/remove admin tools pending the RRFA/election. And I don't think it's fair to the admin to attempt to restrict them just because they've been recalled. If the community thinks that there should be some means for us (the community) to restrict an admin from using some/all tools, or to deadmin them entirely pending the completion of the RRFA or election, then we should form policies and guidelines allowing for that sort of temporary deadminship/restriction of tool usage - whether after a recall succeeds or otherwise (i.e. without any recall). But if not, then we should continue with the current process and pursue ArbCom L1/2 if necessary, otherwise allow them to keep the tools regardless.. To have a separate form of community restriction on an admin using the tools outside of recall/L1/2 strikes me as unfair to that admin, since there's not any community consensus (that I'm aware of) for such restrictions on an admin (whether recalled or not).I also have concerns over how this would be enforced. Is there any evidence that ArbCom would even care if an admin violated this sort of restriction? Would ArbCom consider a violation of this sort of restriction grounds for L2 desysop? If they would, what conditions do ArbCom have on what sort of community restriction like this they would consider for L2? And ultimately, is ArbCom L2 desysop procedures (the only method by which this could be enforced) proper to enforce this sort of restrictions? Hence my slight opposition - at a minimum, I would want ArbCom guidance on what would be necessary for this sort of a community restriction to "stick" (i.e. warrant L2 desysop if it's violated), and confirmation that they would perform a L2 desysop if a community restriction that was imposed in line with whatever guidance they give as to what is necessary for such a restriction to "stick". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!08:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez, why do you think this couldn't be enforced except by arbcom? One presumes tamzin's intent is that it would be enforced the same way basically every community restriction is enforced - by blocks, if violated. --asilvering (talk)17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would a block prevent from using the block/protect buttons? My understanding is that it would not, hence requiring ArbCom action if it continued to be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!18:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A block prevents an admin from blocking anyone other than the admin who blocked them (an option that's left intact to avoid a situation where a rogue admin blocks everyone and has the run of the place). --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Tamzin's proposal saysAny violation of this restriction should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.; personally I would have opted to have it treated as ade facto topic ban, but either way this is necessary, however it is enforced. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that at the exclusion of a block to enforce; that's within any admin's powers if necessary to prevent another admin from violating policy, with or without a restriction on tool use. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) We don't shorten or undo range blocks just because they become "very old". There might be a good reason why the admin placed a long-term block on the IP range, e.g. persistent disruption from editors on that range over a long period of time, as well as shorter range blocks having been tried before but to no success (in fact, if you check the block log of these IP ranges, most of them have had at least one shorter rangeblock applied to them in the past). Or, the entire IP range could be allocated to an open proxy service, hence blocked in the long run straight away, as Wikipedia has a policy that all open proxiesshould be blocked from editing because of the amount of disruption that bad actors can cause by using them to deliberately bypass blocks on their actual public IP addresses.
In cases where collateral damage is apparent (e.g. a rather high volume of unblock/help requests over a short period of time), the range block may be undone before its expiration date, but I don't see that being the case with any of these listed IPs. — AP 499D25(talk)09:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I would like to appeal my block.
I understand now that my edits to theEslöv school stabbing article violated Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, particularly the part about avoiding unsourced or poorly sourced material about living individuals. I’ve read throughWP:BLP andWP:BLPCRIME carefully.
I now understand that we must not name or imply the identity of living persons accused of crimes unless the information is supported by reliable, published sources and the person has been convicted. I also recognize that any speculation, original research, or mention of non-public individuals can cause harm and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
I apologize for my earlier mistake. If unblocked, I will follow all BLP-related policies closely and avoid editing sensitive topics unless I’m sure I have high-quality, reliable sources. I’ll also ask for help at the Teahouse or relevant noticeboards if I’m unsure about policy in the future.
I'm not interested in editing the article, I am requesting an unblock because I cannot acces the wikipedia library while I have an active block.
I think the fact that it took two warnings and a pblock for that information to sink in is problematic. I think that they are only concerned (by their own admission) with getting access to the Wikipedia Library. I also think they already have an unblock request on their talk page and are forum shopping. Other than those thoughts, I have no thoughts about this.Primefac (talk)01:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Slodkiszczur keeps on vandalizing civic coalition (party) page and removing warnings from his own talk page.
The user @Slodkiszczur keeps on removing my sourced info and telling me that it's incorrectly sourced even tho it isn't. I tried to come to the talk page and resolve the dispute but no I also warned him twice but he removed his own warnings and continued his misbehavior.Austragar (talk)16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep dodging and ignoring my questions. You haven't tried to resolve the dispute. I asked you what authority you have to warn me, and you didn't even respond. How can I treat your warnings with respect when you don't even respond to my questions about them?Slodkiszczur (talk)16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is evident on the talk-page is that no consensus has formed in favor of your edits, and that multiple other editors have suggested politely that (both of) you stop edit-warring, and that you (Austragar) need to better respectWP:OR. Both of these pieces of advice are sound; you should observe them.173.79.19.248 (talk)16:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OR issue is on a whole other topic/ideological piece not the center-right one. Besides something good came of it as there is a note in ideology now that mentions the party being officially pro-european but Tusk being against the ECHR.
What I know is that my centre-right addition to ideology was well sourced and there hasn't been any condemnation of it on the talk page by others either. So he's removing it for no reason with no support etcAustragar (talk)16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides unlike a certain user I haven't fought against the consensus of the people when they chose to do what they did with pro-europeanism/the note about ECHR and Tusk they edited it I didn't revert
However in the case of centre-right where it clearly says CONSERVATIVES which is a right-wing ideology you kept on reverting together with an IP user without consulting the talk page. Without speaking to others about it and asking them so please.Austragar (talk)16:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, like adding obscenities or nonsense or blanking pages. This isn't vandalism. But calling others' edits "vandalism"can be seen as a personal attack, so please don't do that. SeeWP:VANDAL for more.
Editors are able to remove warnings from their own user talk pages. It means that they've seen the warning. SeeWP:OWNTALK.
If there are questions about sourcing and the discussion isn't going anywhere, you can always start a neutral discussion at theNo Original Research Noticeboard.
Ranges will likely need to be widened. The individual behind this latest mobile, is never going to stop with these useless RMs.GoodDay (talk)03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK have blocked the /34 for 3 months this time. There's nothing else useful happening in the range. IP had even requested an unblock and that was under discussion here[7], but apparently they have ignored the responses are maybe only interested in being disruptive after all. Pingingasilvering,Yamla,PhilKnight who had responded to that unblock for visibility.Mfield (Oi!)04:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With you there, and if it were just a couple of repeated pages I'd semi protect the talk pages , but they seem to have widened their scope out.Mfield (Oi!)04:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4 of thePalestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows:For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is theArab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.
Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text:The{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisiblecomment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.
NotableWP:CIR issues from this user. Notable lack of civility. Notable misrepresentations of sources. Inability to respectWP:BRD. I’ll get diffs for these shortly, I’m sad it’s come to this.Mikewem (talk)16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in the Moses discussion, I have to say I'm surprised that VenusFeuerFalle has escalated this to the noticeboards. To me, this still seems like primarily a content dispute, although I must agree with Mikewem that most of the aggression has been on VFF's part.
Something to note here is that VFF is not a native English speaker, which may partly account for the communication problems and VFF's resulting frustration.A. Parrot (talk)16:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is really just an insult from you. Claiming incompetence by someone who cannot even get basic terminology right is jsut appaling. If this does not lead to a ban, I am done with this project anyways. This is an utlimtum, I am tired of admins ignoring clear religious zealots and people who come from a religious baised viewpoints to be given the same credits as a historical secular viewpoint. This is not the Wikipedia I have invested my time and efforts into!VenusFeuerFalle (talk)16:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever problems there may be with Mikewem's edits, I don't see what makes them the product of religious zealotry, and I'm rather puzzled that you keep jumping to that conclusion.A. Parrot (talk)17:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very surprising to me. I'm not familiar with this specific situation but I've collaborated with VenusFeuerFalle on topics related to religion before and would have never questioned their competence. I think de-escalation is likely appropriate here.Simonm223 (talk)18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that, looking at the edit history, it does look like VenusFeuerFalle is engaged in borderline edit-warring[8] and so I would suggest that de-escalation should also involve avoiding that behaviour and engaging at talk.Simonm223 (talk)18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With that being said, VFF has raised some good points. For instance this website is most likely inappropriate as a source[9] unless we really stretchWP:EXPERTSPS. So while I would recommend they remember there's no deadline and suggest they should avoid edit warring I'd also suggest that MikeWM should take some of their sourcing concerns more seriously.Simonm223 (talk)18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through some of the diffs, for examplethis source addition from Mikewem. I found this source atGoogle Books but I'm not able to verify the claim on the given pages ("55–66"). Perhaps I missed it? If anyone can give the actual page that verifies this claim, I'd be happy to look again.
I also checkedthe removed claim in this diff against the source, also available atGoogle Books, and the sourcedoes say "Moses was in all likelihood a historical figure". It then goes into a variety of issues with the claims attributed to Moses, but none of that appears to undermine the supposed historicity of Moses.
The last thing I'll say is that any accusations of religious biases really should be accompanied by diffs. To my knowledge, the historicity of many figures from the Bible isn't doubted, and it's not a bias to say so. Of course, attributing supernatural abilities to them is another matter.Woodroar (talk)17:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The historicity of Moses is uncertain. I mean, we can't even be sure that he did not exist, since the data is lacking. If he did exist, he is lost to the historical record.tgeorgescu (talk)17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've done more research and it does appear that the majority of academic biblical scholars believe that Moses is likely mythical and was not a historical figure. At least that's what I'm seeing from a cursory reading of sources. I believe this has changed in the decades since I studied the subject in college. Interesting!Woodroar (talk)18:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a question of whether Schmid and Schröter said it in 2021, as we report they did. Verification confirms that they did say it in 2021. It’s possible we shouldn’t use this source for some other reason, but no other reason has been raised.Mikewem (talk)18:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VFF challenged the claim from the lead that “Mosaic Law” (or some reasonable synonym of it) is mentioned in the Quran. They did not challenge the same claim’s appearances in the body of the article atMoses#Islam. So I checked that the source does say what we claim it says, then copied the cite into the lead, due to VFF’s challenge. Pg 55 says “Moses is defined in the Quran as both prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul), the latter term indicating that he was one of those prophets who brought a book and law to his people.” Our article possibly plagiarizes this in this Islam section, and that sentence in our article should possibly be looked at.Mikewem (talk)18:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does that really verify the source, though? It's rather vague, "brought a book and law to his people". The statement in our article is very specific, "According to the Bible and Quran, God dictated the Mosaic Law to Moses, which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah". I think we should have a source that clearly and unambiguously supports this.Woodroar (talk)18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This request seeks administrative review of the July 2025 closure of theRfC on the scope of theFloppy disk article. UnderWP:CONSENSUS,the strength of arguments must be judged “as viewed through the lens ofWikipedia policy.” The closer appears to have evaluated the discussionprimarily on the distribution of views rather than through that requiredpolicy lens, and therefore misjudged both the applicable policy standardsand the scope of disagreement. Review is requested underWP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
For convenience, this appeal hereinafter uses the abbreviations FD,FDD, HCFD, and HCFDD for floppy disks and floppy disk drives.
The present dispute originated in mid–2025 atParallel ATA, where aneditor questioned whether high-capacity floppy disks (HCFDs) and theirassociated drives properly fell within the scope of “floppy disks.”Discussion of this position began at that article’s talk page on 5 July2025.[1]
Shortly afterward, similar removals were made atFloppy disk,prompting concerns that long-standing and reliably sourced content wasbeing deleted without consensus. The relevant procedural history is:
5 July 2025 — Scope concerns first raised atParallel ATA talk page[1]
13 July 2025 — Removals of unreferenced and HCFD material atFloppy disk began without prior consensus[2]
19 July 2025 — TheFloppy disk article was proposed for deletion based on alleged lack of proper scope and sourcing; the community unanimously rejected the proposal and determined that the article should be kept[3]
28 July 2025 — Inclusive scope restored following discussion, based on reliable-source terminology and established coverage of the floppy disk generation[4]
12 August 2025 — Concerns about tendentious removal at theParallel ATA article were raised at the Administrators’ noticeboard; no action was taken pending broader input[5]
13 August 2025 — An RfC was opened atFloppy disk to solicit wider community views while the earlier discussion was still ongoing[6]
September 2025 — The RfC was closed with a determination of “consensus for Option #1” (narrow scope)[7]
October 2025 — The closure was questioned on the talk page, and an uninvolved administrator provided guidance regarding avenues for review, leading to this appeal[8]
Views in the RfC were divided among narrowing, partial inclusion, and fullinclusion. As explained below, this review challenges the RfC closure’sdetermination, which did not reflect the strength of arguments when judgedthrough policy, as required underWP:CONSENSUS.
UnderWP:CONSENSUS, the strength of arguments must be judged throughcore content policies rather than vote count. The following policies aredirectly relevant to how article scope should be determined:
WP:TITLE — Article titles reflect usage in reliable sources. Since reliable sources refer to high-capacity floppy disks as floppy disks, narrowing scope would conflict with policy.
WP:RS /WP:V — Reliably sourced information must be included. Removal requires lack of sources, not editorial preference.
WP:NPOV — Excluding successor formats risks bias and misrepresents the full historical development of the technology.
WP:PRESERVE — Preference for improvement over deletion. Wholesale removal of sourced content fails this principle.
Together, these policies support the established inclusive scope andrequire that any narrowing must be justified by stronger policy-basedreasoning than was presented in the RfC.
The closer correctly noted that an RfC outcome depends on the strength ofarguments rather than a numerical count of supports. However,WP:CONSENSUS specifies that strength must be judged “as viewed throughthe lens of Wikipedia policy.” In this discussion, no reasoning wasoffered as to why the arguments for limiting the article to “traditionalfloppy disks” were stronger or how such a restriction would comply withthe core content policies—particularlyWP:V,WP:NPOV, andWP:PRESERVE.
The RfC attracted roughly twenty participants with views distributed amongthree main positions. Approximate support was ~9 for Option #1, ~4 forOption #2, and ~6 for Option #3/5/7. Their principal arguments aresummarized in the table below.
Option
Summary
Key Arguments Cited
#1
Exclude HCFDs; limit to “traditional” floppy disks
While the closer correctly observed that consensus depends on argumentstrength rather than vote count,WP:CONSENSUS also requires thatstrength be judged “as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.”Editors across the discussion invoked the same policies—especiallyWP:SURPRISE,WP:UNDUE, andWP:RS—but applied them differentlyaccording to their understanding of scope. The following subsectionsreview each principal argument in turn.
Conflicts with policy (Section 3) — Excluding high-capacity floppy disks conflicts with the core content policies described above, includingWP:V,WP:NPOV, andWP:PRESERVE.
Avoid reader confusion (cuts both ways) — Some readers may expect only legacy formats (WP:SURPRISE), but others reasonably expect all technologies referred to as “floppy disks” in reliable sources.
No source for “traditional” floppy disk category — No reliable source defines a “traditional” subset. Scope would depend on personal judgment rather than verifiable criteria, contrary toWP:RS. A recent example was an editor’s good-faith addition of an early Burroughs flexible-disk drive to the main article, later moved toFloppy disk variants with a citation added.[9]
Small market segment — Opponents argued high-capacity drives were too limited to merit inclusion (WP:UNDUE). But exclusion would distort the historical development of floppy-disk technology.
Semantics (cuts both ways) — Some argued that LS-120 and others are not “floppy disks” because they are not always named as such, but that inference constitutes original synthesis underWP:SYNTH. Reliable sources such asBriggs andPC Magazine explicitly describe LS-120 as a high-capacity floppy disk or floppy-disk drive.[10]
Simplify / readability / organization — Several editors preferred narrowness for simplicity, but organization alone does not justify removal of sourced content.
Improve organization and focus — This option echoes the clarity rationale for #1 but does not address conflicts withWP:V orWP:PRESERVE.
Treat rare formats as subtopics — Supports inclusion in principle but favors limited detail in a companion article, such asFloppy disk variants.
Ambiguous treatment of HCFDs — No consistent or policy-based rationale was given for excluding high-capacity formats while retaining less-notable variants.
No clear policy basis for excluding successors — Opponents noted that reliable sources cover HCFDs as direct successors, so exclusion creates inconsistency underWP:RS.
Reliable-source usage requires inclusive scope — Major authorities (Mee[11],Porter[12],Briggs[10],CHM[13]) treat high-capacity disks as part of the floppy-disk lineage. This directly supports inclusion underWP:RS andWP:V.
No reliable source defines a separate “traditional floppy disk” category — exclusion relies on editor interpretation, not policies grounded inWP:RS.
Avoid bias (WP:NPOV) — Excluding successors misrepresents the technology’s full history.
Proportional treatment (WP:UNDUE) — The article already treats later formats briefly and proportionally, avoiding overemphasis while retaining accuracy.
Semantics (cuts both ways) — Naming differences do not establish scope; sources explicitly call LS-120 high-capacity floppy disks[10] so exclusion based on terminology alone would beWP:SYNTH.
Prior local consensus — The inclusive scope was reaffirmed in July 2025[4] based on reliable sources. No new evidence was introduced in the RfC to overturn that result, so underWP:CONSENSUS andWP:STATUSQUO the inclusive version remains the default.
Although Option #1 appeared numerically ahead,WP:CONSENSUS requirespolicy-based argument strength to prevail over headcount. Here, support fornarrowing scope lacked stronger policy grounding than the rationalesupporting inclusion. At a minimum, the discussion lacked a clear andshared policy reason to exclude high-capacity floppy-disk designs. Theproper procedural result is thereforeNo Consensus. UnderWP:STATUSQUO, the inclusive article scope remains the default unlessand until a stronger policy-based consensus supports narrowing it.
This request seeks administrative review of the RfC closure underWP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The closer did not address the central policy issueraised repeatedly in the RfC:
Key policy question for review:
Do reliable sources — including major authorities on magnetic storage technology (e.g.,Mee,Porter,Briggs, and theComputer History Museum) — define “floppy disks” to includehigh-capacity floppy disks?
This question is critical: if the answer is yes, then underWP:RS,WP:V,WP:TITLE,WP:NPOV, andWP:PRESERVE the inclusive scope is directly supported by reliable published sources; narrowing scope would introduce bias by excluding documented successors; and removal of sourced content could not be justified by editorial opinion.
Requested outcome
If reviewing administrators determine that the reliable sources cited above do include high-capacity floppy disks within the scope of theFloppy disk article, then:
Replace the finding of “consensus for Option #1” with a finding ofconsensus for Option #5, retaining the inclusive scope and allowing improvements to readability through subarticles such asFloppy disk variants.
If reviewing administrators determine that this policy-based consensus has not yet been established, then:
Replace the close withNo Consensus, confirming that the inclusive scope remains the default underWP:STATUSQUO unless and until a stronger policy-based consensus supports narrowing it.
This is a procedural request based solely on correct application of Wikipedia’s consensus and content policies, and does not reflect on the good faith of any editor involved.
