The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good day! I truly hope this message finds anyone reading it well! I am hereby applying for an unblock request once again in the hope that this time my unblock request will be taken into consideration. I would like to enlist a series of noteworthy reasons for which I personally consider that I deserve to be unblocked but, first of all, I would like to sincerely apologise for my previous disruptive behaviour and acknowledge the fact that it was entirely my fault. The previous disruptive behaviour, from my particular perspective at least, occurred mostly on my talk page and not within the main space (i.e. it was definitely not vandalism).
As I previously mentioned, I would like to enlist a series of noteworthy reasons for which I honestly believe that I deserve to be unblocked:
1) I did not create any alternative accounts during this relatively long blocked period on Wikipedia (nor do I personally want to create any in the future as well as I perceive this particular aspect, solely for me and in personal regards, counterproductive). 2) Over the passage of time, I have created several meaningful articles (the vast majority of which can still be read and were therefore not deleted) and contributed a significant number of positive edits which are still in place across the English Wikipedia. 3) I am not blocked on any other version of Wikipedia nor am I any longer blocked on Wikimedia Commons. 4) Wikipedia has been a very dear and important part of my life and a tremendously useful project in which I contributed in the past and I am willing to contribute more (including on this version of this project) in the future. It is a precious source of information which I highly respect. Additionally, I also donated in the past for keeping it up and running and I intend to do so in the future as well. 5) I am a user who considers himself predominantly non-conflictual, polite, responsible, and able to contribute to the best of my capabilities on a wide range of subjects. 6) I have a series of approved contributions on other projects which are still in place and I am an active contributor on several other versions of Wikipedia as well. 7) After the last unblock appeal (which was partially accepted and for which I am deeply grateful to this day), access to my talk page was restored. Even though my previous unblock request was not taken in consideration at that time (a decision which I respect), I did not (and will not) use my personal talk page for disruptive editing or any other personal rants which are obviously not allowed and extremely counterproductive for this project, even on a personal talk page. 8) I am a user who strongly believes in and supports the culture of dialogue. 9) For some of my contributions (which were deemed relevant enough for this project), I received a thank you note at the beginning of this page. 10) Last but not least, I consider the fact that I learnt my lessons quite well, I understand very well why I was blocked, it was my fault, and, once more, I would like to sincerely apologise for the inconveniences that I created. Furthermore, I strongly believe that, if unblocked, I will still be a valuable and productive contributor (to the best of my capabilities, that is) to this version of this project.
Therefore, these are the main reasons for which I consider that I deserve to be unblocked, if deemed acceptable that is. Lastly, thank you very much for your time, attention, and readership! All the best!Rosenborg BK Fan (talk)13:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - admins should seeUTRS appeal #104345, which was declined for not adequately addressing the reasons for their block (which gomuch deeper than just "disruptive editing"). This request is essentially a copy of that UTRS, but also see their UTRS history of repeatedly submitting unsuitable appeals, and resubmitting copies of appeals that have already been declined, both after being told to stop.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)14:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Copied over from BK Fan's talk page:
I just read what a certain admin/user wrote about my unblock request in the respective space. First of all, I'd like to thank him for his time and reply. Secondly, I want to underline here that the technical reason (which is also stated in my block log) is disruptive editing per ANI if I'm not mistaken. I also acknowledge the fact that what the respective user/admin mentioned there is correctand for this particular inappropriate aspect I also extended sincere apologies (on more than one occasion).
However, my genuine remorse keeps getting rejected and ignored in spite of my goodwill and willingness to change. While it is true that my past behaviour which led to that block was more than just disruptive editing per se (a decision of opposition of the respective user/admin which I respect, cannot contest, and is accurate), I felt threatened here, met with relative indifference, or a subversive passive aggression (which I do not want to reply with in the same manner and I respect these particular decisions as well), only because I wanted to communicate and reply to another user and I had to reword (in a non-controversial manner) some of my previous replies.
From my particular perspective, it is very sad that after all the relevant reasons that I enlisted, after all the time that I invested here, the polite and appropriate as well as respectful messages that I submitted so far, I am still met with coldness, but I respect the respective admin's decision as such. Lastly, I feel humiliated... Either way, I genuinely wish the respective user all the best and plenty of success here on Wikipedia and beyond.Rosenborg BK Fan (talk)15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Support - they seem to have a good sense of what they did wrong and are committing to not cause similar issues again. They've been active globally, and I don't see obvious issues there. They were unblocked on Commons before coming here, so the admins there took them seriously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
P.S. I am very grateful for the time, attention, and decision of user/admin SarekOfVulcan. Finally, I feel understood! The respective reasons perfectly sums up how I feel (i.e. 'they seem to have a good sense of what they did wrong and are committing to not cause similar issues again.') Once again, I am not a threat to this project, on the contrary, I respect, I appreciate it very much, I even love it because it helped me in many ways throughout my life and all I want is to give a little bit of what I can on as many constituent versions of Wikipedia as possible, especially on the English Wikipedia where I've been active the most throughout the passage of time. Furthermore, I am not a vandal nor do I breach other rules in the main space. I can collaborate quite well with other users and show as much gratitude and respect for their help and guidance whenever needed. I strongly believe in the culture of dialogue, I mentioned this before and I am mentioning it once again. All the best and plenty of respect, SarekOfVulcan! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Above copied from BK's talk page.voorts (talk/contributions)20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I am only writing this here as my final comment before potential admins (whom I respect regardless of what I perceive as their opposition or hate or disrespect towards me, despite my continuous rightful efforts to change, identify what was wrong, and prove that I can change) and their decisions: I will wait for a final consensus in the respective talk space to be reached when it will be reached and not remove my unblock request from my talk page. From my understanding and humiliation by now (which, from my understanding once again, could potentially bring happiness to some users I presume), I think we all know what the result would be. If it is opposition I can't but respect your decision and never apply for another unblock request here (although I respected Wikipedia's guidelines for unblocking on more than one occasion) as I take I am blocked for life (even though, technically, an admin could not tell me this particular aspect per se, but it's crystal clear). No genuine apology or remorse seems to be enough here and that is fine by me now. It's just that I too was humiliated way too much (and one cannot change how some feel behind the screens, so to put it) and I sincerely wish no one involved in this discussion feel what I am feeling right now (you wouldn't even be able to understand me at all, but that's completely fine as I am not asking for something that absurd here). In the end, I truly wish this great project which Wikipedia is (and, implicitly, the English version of Wikipedia) will thrive in the future and become better and better, more reliable, more well-sourced, and with fewer and fewer main space-based technical or factual problems. I truly wish this particular change should happen with or without me. That is what I wish in genuine good faith/goodwill for this project. Oh, and last thing: I truly wish no one would feel what I am feeling right now or go through the multiple humiliations and indifferences that I went through while respecting the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia in terms of unblocking. Whatever decision you reach I respect it and genuinely wish you plenty of success here in whatever you do and all the best even if you despise me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. BK's continued statements that he's being humiliated and that other editors are just seeking to undermine him does not bode well for constructive editing.voorts (talk/contributions)20:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Good day! I truly hope this message finds anyone reading it well. I want to hereby clearly withdraw my former unblock request so as not to leave room for any ambiguity regarding the last failed attempt and so that the respective section involving me on the AN can be officially closed as I do not want to waste anyone else's time (an important aspect which is quite common sensical on my behalf). Lastly, I want to genuinely thank all users involved in the respective section for their time, attention, and readership, and, in particular, I am very grateful to the understanding of SarekOfVulcan whom I respect very much (for many years on Wikipedia, believe it or not, I finally felt myself understood by someone and this felt priceless). Last but not least, I truly respect the decision of opposition towards my previous failed unblock request and I strongly believe that I deserved it and I sincerely apologise for wasting some users' time. I feel already very bad about it. Plenty of success here on Wikipedia and a great time editing in the main space and beyond! Please forgive me for this additional unwanted inconvenience. All the best and plenty of respect!Rosenborg BK Fan (talk)11:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
P.S. I would also like to highlight that I am not a victim (and sincerely apologise if that came off as such when that was definitely not my intention and not the case) and that the final reached decision in the respective space is just (i.e. it is an overwhelming 3-1 no vote which I fully respect and cannot contest under any sort of circumstance as I have absolutely no right to do so). Thank you once again and I apologise for wasting your time as I truly did not mean it. All the best once more and take care!Rosenborg BK Fan (talk)11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think I have this permission from the days when I was a Twinkle developer, but I haven't been active in that space for some years, nor have I ever been an active reviewer. Thank you for removing the permission from my account.This, that and the other (talk)02:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all, I have a "temporary" indefinite block on my account which reads, “Temporary block until editor responds to recent questions about their edits on Jewish terrorism.” I have responded to all of the questions on my talkpage in thissection:here,here, andhere. I outlined that my edits were made ingood faith. I also made adiscussion about them on the talkpage at the time, and only got one reply. I did not undo the reversion of my edits because the user who made the comment made a good argument and I did not feel the need to contest it further. A couple of editors were concerned with some of the edits I made and mentioned it on my talkpage. While I meant to respond to the editors, including@Doug Weller:@Sean.hoyland: and@Theofunny: I got busy with other things and forgot to respond.
Several weeks later, on August 2nd, I received a block that seemed intended to force me to respond to questions about my edits. Over the course of the month, I responded to the questions raised, as the blocking admin requested. I had responded to the article's talkpage as well as to the questions on my talkpage. I made sure to acknowledge where I went wrong with my edits and how I would improve in the future. Namely, that I understand now thatWP:EXCEPTIONAL only applies in extremely rare cases when it pertains to removing sourced content, and that my edit summaries in the past were not as detailed as they should have been and I will make them more detailed moving forward. Two days after the block, the blocking admin Doug Weller stated, “I'll leave it to another Admin to decide.” I asked for clarification regarding his block onhis talkpage and did not receive a response. Then, Iresponded to his comment on my talkpage asking for further clarification if any of the conditions regarding my block remain outstanding. He still has not responded to those inquiries.
I feel like I have tried everything. I feel I have done my best to address the reasoning provided for the block on my talkpage and elsewhere. I have appealed the block three times. I have taken this to theTeahouse. I even learned how to operate theLibera IRC Chat as is recommended byHelp:I have been blocked.
I am starting to feel incredibly hopeless.
I have acknowledged what I will do better moving forward, specifically making more detailed edit summaries, and not removing sourced content. Though I initially removed some content citing policy mentioned above, I now realize that in order to remove sourced content, it must first be taken to the talkpage for consensus to be reached, even if that is my rationale. I also realize now that my edits may not have been as supported by policy as I had first believed, something I would have learned if I took it to the talkpage first. I have been editing for over two years and I have never been blocked before. I acknowledge where I fell short in my comments, but this whole process has been insanely frustrating and I have felt ignored and left in the dark, like someone threw me in a prison and lost the key. Is this "temporary" block truly going to last forever?Gjb0zWxOb (talk)22:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The issue is not, as you stated above, that your edit summaries were notdetailed enough. It was that they were fundamentally misleading. Until you can honestly and adequately respond to straightforward questions without deflecting, you will remain blocked.voorts (talk/contributions)22:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
When I deleted Zealotry in the 1st Century, there was only one source that listed the Zealots as terrorists. I removed the content per the policy reason stated above and put the edit summary, "rm content overly reliant on one source." What I should have done here is (1) not remove the sourced content and instead have taken it to the talkpage to see if WP:EXCEPTIONAL applied here (this of course would apply to all three) and (2) assuming that did not happen (which it would not moving forward) put the edit summary, "Removed the sec. Zealotry in the 1st Century per WP:EXCEPTIONAL in which "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Only one source listed mentioning them as terrorists"
The other two are pretty similar, I removed a Mandatory Palestine section because I thought WP:EXCEPTIONAL applied because it was a whole section based on one source. The edit summary was "rm content overly reliant on one source." Instead, I should have put "removed Mandatory Palestine section per WP:EXCEPTIONAL in which "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", only one source lists this as terrorism."
The third edit on Jewish terrorism has the following edit summary, "rm unsourced content." I stated on my talkpage that my rationale for this edit was, "I did this based on my understanding from a past discussion I had seen somewhere in the past where it said every sentence required a source but I am thinking now that this must have been incorrect, or I misinterpreted the discussion." Therefore, now I would have made the edit summary, "Removing uncited sentences in Post-1948 sec., more sources are needed to bolster the content asserted."Gjb0zWxOb (talk)01:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Generally, my thinking was that a lead should summarize the body. However, in this case, the content was word-for-word copied from the criticism section, I felt that removing it from the lead made it more streamlined. It seemed overstated rather than summarized, which felt WP:Undue for inclusion in the lead, but should definitely be included in the body. In hindsight, I think that the wording in the edit summary should have been more clear, along the lines of, "Removed to streamline lead that had duplicate AIPAC criticism per WP:UNDUE in which "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views."Gjb0zWxOb (talk)15:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Go ahead. Might not matter anyway, given the US has requested all Arbcom records, etc, Wikipedia as we know it might not be around much longer.Doug Wellertalk06:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
In addition to what @Voorts says here, Admins are volunteers. Your pending unblock request is no more important than anyone else's. It will be reviewed and actioned when an admin feels their concerns are answered.StarMississippi00:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been manually doing this at the two-month threshold for a while when I remember. While I don't have any objection to setting a smaller threshold, I think the community should agree on how long we should wait before setting someone as away.* Pppery *it has begun...21:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Changes to the functionaries team, August 2025 (II)
Request for Restoration and Merging of Deleted Articles and Wikidata Items – Honoring Sheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
Closing before this backfires more fully. Wikidata merger has been complete. Content issues can be addressed atBahahuddin Nadwi. Hidaya Chemmad has been advised on routes to potentially get the deleted content and I'm advising you to be mindful ofWP:RGW and casting aspersions. You're remarkably familiar with deleted discussions for a new account. That also can be handled elsehere if needed.StarMississippi13:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Administrators,I amHidaya Chemmad, and I am writing to respectfully request the restoration of content fromthree previously deleted articles related toSheikh Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, a globally respected Islamic scholar and the current Vice Chancellor ofDarul Huda Islamic University, Kerala. He is widely recognized as one of the foremost Muslim thinkers of our time — a visionary leader, reformist educator, prolific author, and an influential voice in global Islamic discourse.
He is the founder of a progressive Islamic academic movement in Kerala, combining traditional scholarship with modern pedagogy, and has made lasting contributions to the development of Islamic higher education. His scholarship has positively impacted communities across the globe, earning recognition not only in India but also in the Arab world, Europe, and Southeast Asia.
I am not seeking to fully undelete these articles into mainspace or to reopen deletion discussions. Instead, I humbly requesttemporary restoration to user space or provision of thedeleted article content from the following pages, in order toreview and merge well-sourced material into the existing, currently active article:Bahahuddin Nadwi.
I believe much of the previously submitted content wasfact-rich, neutral, citation-supported, and improperly discarded without sufficient attention to reliable sources or notability, particularly considering the subject's enduring academic, social, and cultural influence.
I kindly ask for these materials to be temporarily restored or made available for editorial review, with the aim ofrespectfully merging factual, encyclopedic content into the current live article.
Wikidata Merge Request
There is currently a duplication on Wikidata referring to this same individual:
Proposed action: Merge the two items, as they clearly represent the same person.Suggested primary label after merge:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (Aliases can include "Bahauddeen Nadwi", "Bahahuddin Nadwi", and other transliterations for accessibility.)
I understand that this portion may fall under the purview ofWikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, but I am including it here for completeness and continuity.
Closing Note
This request is submitted in the spirit of upholding Wikipedia's mission to document and share knowledge about globally impactful individuals. Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi’s scholarly leadership and transformative contributions to Islamic education are well-documented, deeply notable, and deserving of accurate, well-maintained representation on Wikipedia.
I appreciate your time and consideration, and I am happy to assist further in the editorial or sourcing process to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policies.
AI-generated requests will not be considered. Also, this really seems like a matter for the deleting administrator.Lynch4401:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
I’m requesting the content restoration of all deleted articles, without further investigation. One of the articles was deleted without any discussion, and others were deleted multiple times without proper community review. This is not a request to restore them to mainspace — only to access the deleted content for review.
The goal is to identify and merge any well-sourced, encyclopedic material into the current article. The subject is clearly notable, and valuable content may have been removed without full consideration.Hidaya Chemmad (talk)01:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
That is not true. There were multiple AfDs, which by definition are community reviews. One version was recreated despite those AfDs. If you want to request deletion review, please go toWP:DRV, not AN. But since there is already a live article (again), I see little point in reinstating deleted content to anywhere to see if it's got anything that isn't already in the mainspace article, since they were deleted on grounds of lack of indicated or substantiated notability and borderline promotional content, so the content wasn't satisfactory at those times. One version was in fact userfied, and still exists in user space. Look at the deletion log. Wikidata is its own project, you will need to address any duplications there.Acroterion(talk)01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Hidaya Chemmad, I have seen some editors have success asking the deleting administrator to email them a copy of the deleted article. I would suggest being flexible here and approaching the administrators who deleted these articles and see what they would be open to rather than insisting on the restoration in your User space. After all, the goal here is for you to see the deleted content, right? So, work with these admins and see what they would be willing to do to help you out rather than having a formal noticeboard discussion which, truthfully, could head off on a lot of different tangents.LizRead!Talk!02:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Why do admins continue to marginalize the documented legacy of a globally respected Muslim scholar and the renowned university he built from the ground up — an institution that has redefined Islamic scholarship for an entire generation? The repeated deletion of well-sourced content, without balanced review or due diligence, reflects not just editorial oversight, but a disturbing pattern of systemic bias and intellectual gatekeeping. Wikipedia claims neutrality — but these actions betray that principle.Hidaya Chemmad (talk)03:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
FYI, I have done the wikidata merge, which is not an administrative matter, either here or on wikidata (which is a different project over which this noticeboard has no control).DrKay (talk)06:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: I have removed the CSD tag from the article as neither G4 nor G5 apply to the article as it stands now. It is substantially different (and expanded) from the version deleted at AfD, and a significant number of editors have substantially edited it since it was created by a sock of a banned editor. Technically, G5 wouldn't apply anyway as the banned editor wasn't banned until four days after the article was created. AfD will have to be the method to delete it now.Black Kite (talk)06:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the CSD tag from the article — you're a fair-minded admin.
But I have to ask: why are administrators relentlessly targeting every edit connected to this university and its founder? This no longer feels like standard editorial oversight — it increasingly resembles a coordinated pattern of erasure aimed at notable Islamic scholars and the institutions they’ve built. A similar case was the deletion of theAl Jamia Al Islamiya article, which many editors also viewed as unjust and lacking a fair evaluation of its notability and sources. The repeated removal of well-sourced, encyclopedic content raises serious concerns about systemic bias, double standards, and editorial gatekeeping within parts of the admin community.Hidaya Chemmad (talk)07:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
FYI - I've marked most of the references inBahahuddin Nadwi as{{failed verification}}. The references used are about him, but have nothing to do with the content they are attached too. There's enough reporting on him to probably show he's notable, but the current article is in a poor state. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Article title discussion: Bahauddeen NadwiI’d like to open a discussion regarding the best title for this article. The name appears in multiple forms:
Bahauddeen Nadwi – the previous article title
Bahahuddin Nadwi – the current title, but I believe this was a mistake
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They tagged{{Excessive citations}} to theRoly Porter article, below infobox (diff). I think two citations for one sentence is acceptable because, to quoteWikipedia:Citation overkill, "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources".
I am requesting the removal of Lorraine Crane's NPR rights. Although the user's NPR rights will expire on 28 August 2025, it would be helpful if someone else could take a look at their contributions.フランベ (talk)14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
maybe they would have done self-reflection and apologize. administrator intervention would never be required in the first place. i agree that it's a bit premature.85.98.23.90 (talk)16:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill: granted the temporary right and may be interested in this discussion. We need new page reviewers, and educating those who are just starting and may make mistakes is a whole lot more helpful to the project than running to a noticeboard to publicly call them out without even telling them about any errors or giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes.Schazjmd(talk)16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Schazjmd, and would further note that tag use frequency is perhaps the easiest bad-NPR-behavior to correct for, as it typically just means recalibrating how quickly one moves to tag, rather than having to learn a complicated concept like notability, OR, or copyright law. That said, the concerns raised are valid; I would like to see a response from Lorraine Crane before determining whether any actions are necessary.signed,Rosguilltalk16:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to review my contributions. As you mentioned, this is my trial month at NPR, and I’m still learning. I apologize for the mistakes and will make sure to review the relevant regulatory guidelines before applying these tags again.
I’d also like to clarify that there was no ill intent behind my actions, and I’ll be more careful when determining orphan status going forward. Previously, I relied on tools to suggest tags, but I now realize they often create more issues than they solve, so I’ll use it wisely and when needed to address the problem and give the chance to the author to work on the article more.
Instead of focusing on tagging, I’ll pay closer attention on taking appropriate action myself, such as draftifying or initiating AfD discussions when necessary. If there’s anything else you’d like to point out, I’d truly appreciate the feedback.Lorraine Crane (talk)12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Lorraine Crane: Thank you for your explanation. Apology accepted. However, I'm not talking about just{{Orphan}} tag, but also other tags like{{Excessive citations}} and{{No significant coverage}} (there may be some more inappropriate tags I haven't found yet). If you understand that you made mistakes, then I think you should clean up your own mess.フランベ (talk)13:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I meant rereading the guidelines on applying different tags, including all of those mentioned, not just orphans. I will make sure to double check my previous contributions to clean up where there might've been mistakes committed. Cheers!Lorraine Crane (talk)14:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Lorraine Crane: I have tried my best to be patient, but, looking atSpecial:Contributions/Lorraine Crane, I have to say this: You seem to continue to prioritize other tasks. It is quite disappointing to see that, in the last several days, there has been no retraction or even justification for your tag-bombing I pointed out above.フランベ (talk)14:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I will actually take time to handle all the tags you mentioned that I have applied inappropriately. It is just that I have been learning more deeper into the nuances of each these taggings these past few days and hence my inaction, the other usual tasks I am doing is part of the additional learning. Will advise you of a timeframe soon as I am confident enough to handle each of the specific ones you pointed out, Cheers!Lorraine Crane (talk)19:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi! To update, I will begin the cleanups starting this week onwards, applying what I have learned so far, at least the major ones should be done within the week and if there would be any I missed, do not hesitate to let me know. Cheers!Lorraine Crane (talk)15:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have tried adding a mention of Johann Fischer’s 1825 Austrian patent for a revolver to the main revolver page but the user Swatjester refuses to countenance the idea that it was in fact a revolver patent despite me providing tonnes of evidence indicating it was, which you can find on both the revolver talk page and swatjester’s talk page. I have tried reasoning with him but he is often condescending at best and outright vindictive at worst with his dealings with me and judging from his history this is a common theme with him. For instance, rather than wait for third party arbitration, which I have called for twice, the first time stating that I would respect their decision either way and being ignored both times, he has shut down the debate and refused to allow anyone to comment further on the topic. This seems like an abuse of his admin privileges to me and frankly his open hostility combined with the former makes me wary of confronting him further on my own so I have come here for help.SQMeaner (talk)05:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
@SQMeaner: my reading of it (from Swatjester's talk page andTalk:Revolver) is that you're trying to impose your OR/synth-based view, whileSwatjester (whom you don't appear to have informed of this discussion, BTW) is quite reasonably trying to explain to you some of our policies, which you're refusing to take onboard. And when you didn't get your way, you decided to come here and start attacking Swatjesterad hominem. Not a good look, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for not informing Swatjester, that was a mistake but I assure you not a deliberate one. Personally, I thought it was quite clear based on the evidence I provided that Fischer patented a revolver in 1825 but if you think otherwise I won’t dispute this. Frankly I’m just glad a third party finally intervened in some form. That being said, I still feel Swatjester was out of line and repeatedly took a threatening and condescending tone when it was completely uncalled for in addition to ignoring my requests for third party arbitration. You say I am attacking him ad hominem style but if you go through his history you can see that I’m not the only one who has had issues with him in the past in this respect.SQMeaner (talk)06:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Just because multiple users have "issues" with someone means very little: here you're having "issues" with Swatjester, and my very point is that your issues are without merit. Admins in particular tend to get more than their fair share of insults, accusations, personal attacks, and other garbage hurled at them; that sort of goes with the territory, and doesn't in and of itself tell us anything. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
PS: Oh, and can you please point to where Swatjester was acting in administrative capacity, let alone abusing their position, because I must have missed that? --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
By shutting down my post on his talk page, is that not using his administrative privileges to scare away any and all further debate on the topic?SQMeaner (talk)06:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
So it would have been OK for me to continue the debate on the revolver talk page? If that’s the case then I probably wouldn’t have made this topic to begin with but I thought at the time Swatjester was declaring an end to any and all discussion on the Fischer revolver across all of Wikipedia period.SQMeaner (talk)06:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, it didn’t seem that way to me. What can I say, I clearly misunderstood his intentions if that is indeed what he meant.SQMeaner (talk)06:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I've tried like 17 times to reply and keep getting edit conflicted, but y'all are saying, more concisely, essentially what I was going to say. However, I'm not going to let the insistence that I'm somehow "ignoring requests for a third party arbitration" slide -- that's just a nakedly false statement. I said, word for word,You can involve whatever third party you'd like, but they can't simply ignore our policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. That's neither ignoring, nor refusing to wait for something to which I never agreed to participate, in the first place. (FWIW, my assumption was that they meantWP:3O). Which apparently theydid but with no notification either to me or to the article, so how would I even have known?⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I have quoted my first attempt to involve a third party below, which you completely ignored at the time.
’ Again, I think this conversation would really benefit from inviting someone with more knowledge of the French and German languages to weigh in on it. If we can find someone with a working knowledge of French and/or German who agrees that my sources are too ambiguous to be used then I will withdraw my edits without further debate but I would appreciate it if we could wait for that to happen before either of us takes further action on the main page.’
the second time I am referring to is when I started a new topic on your talk page and again requested a third party to intervene which you responded to by declaring an end to the conversation. At the time I thought this meant an end to any and all discussion of the Fischer revolver on all of Wikipedia but if you just meant on your talk page then I apologise for the misunderstanding.SQMeaner (talk)06:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Ignoring for a second that is referring to a different edit, with a different set of sources being used, and a different underlying issue (SYNTH in the translation), it is not at all the case that you get to force in your preferred version of edits, and then say "Hey, let's agree to just let me have it my way until some unspecified time in the future when we find some other person who may or may not agree with me." No, why would anyone agree to that, particularly when the sourcing was defective in the first place?⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure what you mean with all your ‘different’ talk but I suppose you’re right that by the strict letter of Wikipedia’s law my initial edits were out of line and it would only have been right and proper to leave the main article in its original state before my edits. Am I still clear to post on revolver’s talk page?SQMeaner (talk)07:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't think you should try to beat the dead horse with this issue without significantly improving both the sources you're bringing to the table and your understanding of our policies, but if someone else wants to tell you to go ahead that's on them. To be very explicit, I'm not saying you cannot do it, I'm just not going to be the one who tells you to do so because I think it's a bad idea.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm willing to chalk this up to SQMeaner making a series of misunderstandings in good faith -- though tbh that last part is starting to wear a bit thin for me. It's 3AM for me on a holiday weekend -- I'm going to bed. I think we can likely all move on, but if not and I'm somehow an ultra-bad admin and need to be taken out back and dealt with harshly, may my last words be "Unranked FSU beat Bama 31 - 17, go 'Noles!"⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PBLOCK me for testing
Hi, could someone PBLOCK me from editingUser:Nyttend/testrjehtunrinetdngrm for a week, and then be ready to delete it at my request? I'm trying to figure out some technical aspects, and the last time I blocked myself to run some testing, I accidentally autoblocked myself and had to wait a long time to return to normal.Nyttend (talk)20:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
PS, could someone completely block me for 24 hours? (Disable autoblock and enable talk access, please, and use a summary to clarify that it's strictly a technical test that anyone may undo.) I just discovered that I can unblock myself from partial blocks, at least when the partial block doesn't have any effects anymore.Nyttend (talk)23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Youshouldn't be able get out of this by yourself, specifically because you are disabled from making any logged action when you are fully blocked. (Well, except blocking Extraordinary Writ)Sohom (talk)00:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Use of unreviewed LLM content by User:Wikiwizardinho
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On a random look at the New Page feed, I came across articles created by the user. When I read the paragraphs with keen eyes, the lines that caught my attention were:On this page —Molela terracotta
1]Characterized by vividly painted, wall-mounted plaques, the tradition is practiced predominantly by the Kumhar community of potters and holds both artistic and ritual significance.
2]This miraculous event established the religious foundation of the Molela craft and the devotion to creating deity plaques.
3] Designers and craft researchershave begun adapting Molela motifs for use in contemporary textiles, interior décor, and fashion, helping sustain the craft in modern markets.All the lines I showed have a subjective behavior and emotiveness, which is mostly the nature of AI chatbots.
1] The two forests are separated by a national highway,posing challenges for wildlife movement and necessitating the development of ecological corridors.
2] The reserve offers guided jeep safaris,providing visitors with opportunities to observe leopards and other wildlife in their natural habitat.
3] The proximity of the reserve to Jaipurmakes it a popular destination for both domestic and international tourists.See in this —Raiyoli Fossil Park
1]Researchers working in Raiyoli have determined that Gujarat contains one of the largest known clutches of dinosaur hatcheries in the world. At least thirteen dinosaur species nested there for more than 100 million years until their extinction around 65 million years ago.
2]Excavations at Raiyoli continue under supervision, and local outreach efforts emphasize both heritage preservation and community involvement.
3] Following the excavations, tourism officials of Gujarat branded the area "Dinosaur Tourism." Aaliya Sultana Babi—popularly known as the"Dinosaur Princess"—conducts guided tours of the Raiyoli Dinosaur Fossil Park, blending paleontological interpretation with local folklore. The tours have further increased visitor interest, drawing scientists, students, and tourists from across India and abroad.
The fact is that AI chatbots have a habit of using unnecessary dashes in paragraphs, which is also mentioned inWP:AILIST. It clearly fits the case here.
Moving further to some more articles where a heavy amount of LLM content was used without reviewing, please take a look below:On here —Dholpur—Karauli Tiger Reserve
1] GeographyThe reserve covers a landscape characterized by dry deciduous forests, scrublands, and riverine ecosystems. It lies within the semi-arid region of Rajasthan and supports diverse flora and fauna. The topography is marked by low hills, seasonal rivers, and grasslands,providing a conducive environment for large carnivores such as the tiger.The whole of this paragraph appears to be LLM-generated and violatesWP:OR andWP:V.
2]It plays a crucial role in maintaining genetic diversity and mitigating human–wildlife conflicts.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop using AN as a forum to relitigate an inconclusive RfC. All that could be done would be to reopen it or overturn it if there was an obviously mistaken conclusion, not to transfer the argument here. DRN is thataway.Acroterion(talk)02:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current state of the maps on the2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary article is abysmal. The current maps in the infobox have the color scheme of Yellow Zohran, Blue Cuomo, while maps lower on the page have the color scheme Blue Zohran, Yellow Cuomo. This all stemmed from me adding maps for the first, second, and final rounds by borough, assembly district, and precinct, upon which I changed the color scheme from Yellow Zohran, Blue Cuomo to Blue Zohran, Yellow Cuomo. This is because it is standard of U.S. downballot Democratic primaries for the winner to be colored blue, as seen in all prior NYC mayoral Democratic primaries, all U.S. senate democratic primaries, all U.S. House democratic primaries, etc. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to this rule. The reason that the maps initially on the page were colored blue for Cuomo was because he was assumed the winner (the maps date back to June 7th, the primary was June 25th) and that was never rectified post-primary until I made the change. Despite the clear precedent in favor of this, one editor pushed back, claiming that Yellow Cuomo and Blue Zohran was more appropriate due to campaign colors, with Zohran using yellow more and Cuomo using blue more. I and other editors pointed out the flawed logic in this (for one, campaign colors are never used in determining color scheme and two, Zohran also uses blue in his campaign logo, and his logo is really blue/orange not blue/yellow). There was also pushback against my statement that it was precedent for blue to be the Democratic primary winner by using old presidential Democratic primaries to suggest that it wasn't precedent, even though presidential elections are notoriously different than downballot elections, with the two even havingdifferent general election palettes. In the midst of this, an editor took my maps and derived blue Cuomo, yellow Zohran maps and replaced them in the infobox (they didn't make their own from scratch, they directly copied it from mine, as viewable in the file description), claiming that this was the status quo due to the color scheme predating my maps. After a while, a variety of editors eventually placed my blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo maps lower on the page, while the derived maps were placed in the infobox. This led to some concerns by other editors (including myself) over the completely mismatching color schemes on the page, but it was assumed that this would be resolved after the RfC closed so that one color scheme would prevail and there would be no confusion. Unfortunately,the RfC was just closed, though, with a no consensus result, although the individual who closed the discussion gave an official tally of 5-4 in favor of yellow Cuomo (I counted 5-3 but he included an individual who said that they didn't feel as strongly about the result) andhas conceded that my arguments are stronger:
As you said, I don't believe that campaign colors represents any precedent to my knowledge, nor did I think any editor make such a claim. Upon reflection on the arguments made, I can see how the precedent argument is somewhat stronger that the campaign colors argument, but I'm still not convinced that it is strong enough to result in consensus with the result of the votes.
I have talked to an admin about rectifying the color schemes on the article but they have said that I should not edit the page, and there seems to be no push whatsoever to rectify this massive discrepancy. As a result, I am asking for a modification to the results of the RfC to give consensus in favor of blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo and/or direct permission to change the color schemes in the infobox back to what it originally was before the derivations of my maps were made.Orca🐋 (talk)21:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
The rules of RfC dictate that the status quo stands. In that case, you are going against what the established status quo during the RfC was.Orca🐋 (talk)02:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
@Orca: I was the user who made that edit (and the derivative maps, for what it's worth). If I've violated the RfC then mea culpa, but I don't think it makes sense to have two conflicting maps and colour schemes on the same article, hence why I created and added new yellow Mamdani/blue Cuomo maps.LivelyRatification (talk)02:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree that maps should not conflict, but the author explicitly said this:
I am not going to prescribe what colors should be used uniformly for the article, that would not reflect the no consensus that I found in the RFC, although I do understand and empathize with how frustrating this situation is. It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to. Reverting the colors in the infobox to the diff you shared might be considered disruptive to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the article, but changing the labels and Zohran's photo would be allowed. I recommend giving time for consensus to change/form before restarting the discussion on the colors.I purposefully avoided making this determination of colors in my closure because I felt that returning the article to the status quo from a no consensus would be too favorable to those supporting yellow for Mamdani who used the status quo in their own arguments. You are right that there is a numerical majority in favor of yellow for Cuomo, but as I explained in my closure, I felt that this was too close to establish a consensus, especially with a single vote swap that could have altered the majority or induce a tie, and that reason is what justifies my no consensus closure the most.
If you change the maps to blue Zohran yellow Cuomo, I will not revert your edits since that is what consensus leans towards. But you directly changed it to a version the closer specifically advised against.@LivelyRatification:@RachelTensions:Orca🐋 (talk)02:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The status quo for colors is yellow for Mamdani and blue for Cuomo. That's the color key that the article has used for each candidate going all the way back to its creation, long before any further maps were added to the article that used a contrary key. Since the RfC determined to keep the status quo for colors for each candidate, then this is what we're to use.Regardless, this is a content dispute, not an administrative issue. This is likely the wrong venue for this discussion.RachelTensions (talk)02:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I was told by the closer to go via this avenue. Andthe closer explicitly said that this was not his intent for all the maps to be yellow Zohran and that the arguments and support for blue Zohran are slightly stronger. pinging@Gramix13: on thisOrca🐋 (talk)02:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
And you do realise what you are saying right now is exactly what the closer is saying he did not say "no consensus" for right? Did you not read the bolded text in the quote of theirs above?Orca🐋 (talk)02:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
In the event that an RfC is closed as no-consensus, then the status quo stands. The proposed change to the status quo has failed. The closer can tiptoe around it, as they did here, but that's really how it works.There is no other action to take other than maybe coming up with a different option that wasn't presented at the RfC.RachelTensions (talk)02:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The status quoduring the RfC had both conflicting maps on the page. You are making up your own status quo, a decision which has not been determined, and which the author explicitly says was not their decision. You are not the closer, you don't get to decide what the status quo is. In case you missed it, this was their solution:
It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to.
Would like to clarify that I didn't read Orca's userpage in detail before making my edits, my only real aim was consistency, not enforcing a specific colour palette, which seems honestly quite trivial. I apologise if my edits were in violation of the intended outcome of the RfC, but my assumption was that, given that the RfC had closed, a consistent standard on the page should be enforced. I didn't make it blue Zohran and yellow Cuomo because there was explicitly no consensus for that colour scheme.LivelyRatification (talk)02:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh boy. This is a content dispute, but I see that the overall editor behavior hasn't changed much since I pageblocked Orca and DimensionalFusion for arguing/reverting about colors back in July. It was inWP:LAME territorythen. If the RfC is inconclusive, then abide by thestatus quo. I fail to see how the colors matter as long as they're distinguishable for people with vision issues. This isn't a campaign website, and we're not obligated to follow a candidate's preferred branding. If another edit war erupts over this, there will be further sanctions. Stop using AN to argue.Acroterion(talk)02:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I was explicitely told by the closer to go though this avenue to get this fixed. I also quote this above from the closer but this was what they deemed to be the status quo:
I am not going to prescribe what colors should be used uniformly for the article, that would not reflect the no consensus that I found in the RFC, although I do understand and empathize with how frustrating this situation is.It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to.Reverting the colors in the infobox to the diff you shared might be considered disruptive to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the article, but changing the labels and Zohran's photo would be allowed. I recommend giving time for consensus to change/form before restarting the discussion on the colors.I purposefully avoided making this determination of colors in my closure because I felt that returning the article to the status quo from a no consensus would be too favorable to those supporting yellow for Mamdani who used the status quo in their own arguments. You are right that there is a numerical majority in favor of yellow for Cuomo, but as I explained in my closure, I felt that this was too close to establish a consensus, especially with a single vote swap that could have altered the majority or induce a tie, and that reason is what justifies my no consensus closure the most.
Note that this "as is" was when the color schemes were mismatching. So I only opened this to resolve it to a single color, which the closer recommended me to do. I am trying to do this by the right pathway and I feel like you keep assuming this as bad faith@Acroterion:Orca🐋 (talk)02:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
If, as you've stated, you want things resolved to use a single single consistent color scheme throughout the article, then the status quo color scheme going all the way back to the creation of the article is what should be used.Given your comments earlier todayhere seem to indicate you're not willing to compromise on anything short of getting your way, I'm not sure there is much more we can do here:"I will not settle on this, the maps in the infobox must be blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo, or I am not going to upload any more maps to Wikipedia. So you need to let me know what pathway I can get that done by. This is not something I am willing to compromise on whatsoever."RachelTensions (talk)02:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
No this is because the arguments for yellow Zohran are completely ridiculous, this doesn't mean I'm not going throught he proper pathways. You can clearly see in that thread I am asking how to resolve it instead of directly editing on the page with my preferred edits.Orca🐋 (talk)02:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
As the closer, yes, this is absolutely in LAME territory. I'm now realizing that failing to specify that the status quo holds, and leaving that be implicit to editors, was not helpful for the article, even though my intent was to avoid making the close seem favored to those supporting the status quo and making it more likely to be challenged as non-neutral. I will amend my close to make this status quo explicit to avoid further confusion over the result of the RFC. I take full responsibility for having this be brought to AN, I had suggested this to Orca in good faith believing that giving them the proper avenue to challenge a closure would avoid enflaming the dispute and prevent them from disruptively enforcing their preferred colors or starting another RFC prematurely, but their responses and bludgeoning here has proved me wrong. I'll consider pointing an involved editor to DRN the next time I get involved in a dispute of a closure like this one where it ends in no consensus.Gramix13 (talk)02:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Since you've only been around since April, I appreciate your willingness to dive in the deep end, but closing contentious RfCs isn't always a rewarding experience.Acroterion(talk)02:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
@Gramix13: so what are you suggesting that status quo to be? I feel like given the arguments for blue Zohran are stronger as you admit, majority support blue Zohran (even if slightly), and the version in which all current maps on the page were first around was with blue Zohran yellow Cuomo (all newer map versions for the final and second round, plus the first round AD map were derivations of my maps), it is only fair for the color scheme to be blue Zohran, even if as a temporary status quo until this is resolved.Orca🐋 (talk)02:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps an admin could take a look atUser:Kailas Gite? It appears to have been created by mistake by someone attempting to create an article about a person namedKailas Gite. I've moved the page toDraft:Kailas Gite but am not sure what to do about the user page since I don't believe an user account by that name exists. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this why checking on a file the draft's creator also uploaded. From the page history of the draft, though, the creator seems a bit lost. It looks like this actually did start out in the draft mainspace, was moved to the mainspace by its creator, was subsequently tagged with{{Notability}} by another user, was then moved back to the draft namespace by its creator for some reason (perhaps they thought doing so would get rid of the notability tag), and then finally moved to "User:Kailas Gite" by its creator (most likely in an attempt to get it back to the mainspace). The edit summaries that the creator left indicate they feel the subject is Wikipedia notable and that an article about them can be created. I'm not too sure about this which is why I draftified the page again and added{{AfC draft}} to the top. If someone feels the subject is Wikipedia notable, they can move the page back to the mainspace if they want. --Marchjuly (talk)02:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
False banned?
I got false banned, I don't know the reason anymore and I have to wait until next year at the first of january to edit again. I don't know what to do and to say my account but I got banned like I think a year or couple months after I edited a page. Please reply if you know what I can do.178.197.218.203 (talk)19:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Wait I got blocked but I don't really understand what it means by blocked. Does it mean I can't login and make edits cause I found out after trying to add an image of a plane into a plane crash article that was deleted due to copyright a few months back.178.197.218.203 (talk)19:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I saw the rangeblock. I was asking because the IP editor said:I don't know what to do and to saymy account but I got banned like I think a year or couple months after I edited a page.voorts (talk/contributions)23:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The block prevents only edits to user pages and user talk pages. You can edit articles without an account, or create an account from a different network and then use that to edit.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is to notify administrators of two parallel discussions concerning related topics:
Why should be deleted and salted: multiple prior deletions under variant spellings, concerns about block evasion, and lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources (perWP:GNG andWP:NPROF).
Why should be merged: the institute appears to lack sufficient independent notability to stand alone, and perWP:MERGE andWP:PRESERVE, its information could be better maintained in the Chemmad article, similar to other local institutions (e.g.Al Jamia Al Islamiya).
Because these discussions overlap in scope (the institute and its leadership), I am posting here so administrators are aware and can monitor for consistency and policy alignment. Please comment in the linked discussions rather than here.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to appeal mytopic ban in its entirety. There are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for{{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban.WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons". I know I made mistakes in the past, but I have had few to no incidents for over one year. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk)23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Define "few to none" with diffs, please. Seeing these examples might help determine how the IDHT and CIR concerns that were raised when you were topic banned in the first place. It's fine to appeal after a year, but I think most are going to want to see more information about how you've handle disagreements over the past year. And yes, you should have included the previous appeal in your request from 6 months ago for full disclosure. I'm not inclined to support at this time, btw.Dennis Brown -2¢23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
This is not a convincing appeal so far, but copyright is IMO serious enough that I wouldn't mind carving out an exception for histmerge templates.—Compassionate727(T·C)01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment I imposed the topic ban but am fully neutral on this request as I haven't been able to assist Jax on their Talk due to limited on wiki time. The question I ask though is the same one I did last time - Jax should make a case why they need to be the one applying these tags vs. either letting someone else do it, or complete the action rather than just tagging. I am not opposed to the carveout C727 suggests avove.StarMississippi02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I am guessing that people might not know about some articles that need to be history merged unless I notify someone about the specific pages, as noted below. --Jax 0677 (talk)15:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think there's a reasonably clear difference between using templates like{{history merge}},{{edit template-protected}}, or{{db-move}} that require permissions that Jax 0677 doesn't have, and the templates people were complaining about in the original discussion; so like Star Mississippi, I'm not opposed to a carveout for them. But I'm very wary of rescinding the ban completely - people had, for example, been complaining about the part that personally irritates me the most - the opaque, idiosyncratic template redirects - for more than a decade (seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Template:Wpcy and the following seven nominations; also several more nonconsecutive ones on that same daily subpage) without a hint of behavioral change right up until the ban was imposed. —Cryptic03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I simply wish I had better definition of which templates I am and am not allowed to use. On my talk page, StarMississsippi said "I'd stay away from the latter two as you're telling others to do a certain thing". --Jax 0677 (talk)23:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I see opening a discussion different to dropping a tag on an article even if tagging it is part of opening an RM. Like @Pppery, I don't think this would be a violation. It's certainly not one I'd block you for. Re: which templates you're able to use and not, what you still haven't answered unless I missed it is whyyou need to patrol this. Opening a discussion for a Requested Move is probably fine. But is there a reason you can't move the articles? Or leave the articles for someone else? That's still the open questionStarMississippi00:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The7DS album articles have been at incorrect titles for months, and AFAIK, I cannot even ask others to move articles. I cannot moveFractured Paradise (album) toFractured Paradise. "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists". The same is true forCloser to Chaos (album). I am sure that there will be cut and paste moves that require history merge. --Jax 0677 (talk)00:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I mean it was you who created Fractured Paradise and Closer to Chaos (without the dabs) so you could have requested G7, which would be allowed as you cannot delete an article. That said, I've deleted the redirects and moved the articles because process for the sake of process is annoying-but also does it matter that they're at incorrect titles? Does it impact the project at all?StarMississippi00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I would strongly advise that if you do go that route you avoid flooding RM with unnecessary requests. We do not have the bandwidth in general right now. Not to say you can't, but be mindful.StarMississippi02:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Sravanthi (given name)/Sravanthi is technically histmergable but seems like a rather low-priority history merge since the content being merged isn't copyrightable in the first place (nobody's attribution is lost) and it would require a delete/undelete and the attendant mess that entails to do right. I most likely couldn't be bothered to do this, but if another admin wants to do this I wouldn't complain.
This doesn't mean that I oppose this proposal; histmerging is notoriously arcane with few of its conventions documented and they often differ from admin to admin, so I can't really expect Jax 0677 to know them all.* Pppery *it has begun...18:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I just saw it listed here so I think I should point out that the Rajput articles have been the target of extensive ideological sockpuppetry and likely have hijackings in their history. That page may be a case where a histmerge would be more harmful than helpful. I haven't actually reviewed just now to get up to speed but please proceed with caution.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)18:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Would you say these are candidates for the "list of contributors" approach? So we can get into strict compliance with the terms of use without doing heavy duty reconstruction of unhelpful edits in the page history, I mean.—S MarshallT/C22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It seems these aren't the target articles I'm thinking of. Probably I'm thinking of other articles that the socks have tried to hijack to insert their Rajput POV forks into those pages; hard to find but not relevant here anyway. For the (surname) and (disambiguation) pages that have parallel histories, I don't think anything should be done really. It's basically the same small group of contributors, and very little of the content (maybe none) is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright treatment anyway.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any narrowing or overturning of the topic ban; the proposed examples of histmerge tagging fail to make their case so I'm not convinced them histmerge tagging would be useful.* Pppery *it has begun...02:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I really think it's a case of the topic banworking, not something that is no longer necessary. I'd rather let some of these relatively trivial things go addressed than Jax bog down the community with endless discussions from their confusing or poorly thought out template usage.Sergecross73msg me23:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Third admin opinion requested at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all, we appear to have ended up with a bit of an impasse atWikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer#User:Cactusisme, with myself hedging against conferring permissions andSohom Datta hedging towards conferring. Given that discussion has stalled, I, and I suspect also Sohom, don't want to unilaterally overrule the other, so I'd ask that an additional admin step in and decide whether to confer or decline at this time.signed,Rosguilltalk16:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An RfC is open on whether use ofemojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion underG15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Roughly 5 years ago, a Youtuber, by the online alias of Jacksucksatlife, otherwise known as Jack Massey Welsh, came onto Wikipedia on a video and edited theBishop Auckland article, to include a reference to himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZmf4qywZA&t=147s). While there was already some vandalism to the page at this point, thanks to his audience, his inability to see consequence here, led to continued vandalism, even this day.
Whilst his behaviour on the topic majorly calmed down, his audience's didn't, leading to a nonstop attempt to get an article created. We had previously already deleted a page for this Youtuberin 2018, so tooin 2020, after his video.
His audience claims him to be notable, noting that he has a world record, and has over 4.5M subscribers, which us on Wikipedia have disagreed with in several A/MfD discussions, as our policies (WP:GNG) mean he is not notable, as he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. I've personally reached out to some of his viewers, off wiki, to explain our policies and our stance, which met mixed reception. However, due to the incidents over the years, several variations of his handle/name have recieved salting, and several more drafts are currently in creation, includingseveral I put foward for MfD several days ago.
There are more draft articles, outside of this MfD, which, I would argue has already met consensus for deletion, thanks to the consistency of our voice against this behaviour to try and brute force and article onto Wikipedia, seemingly for clicks.
Unsure of what action could be taken here, however, I'm bringing this to the attention of Administrators as clearly the current attempt to handle this situation on wikipedia is not working, and is wasting time of dedicated users.NeoJadeTalk/Contribs16:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that Jack or his viewers were trying to get a Jack sucks article independent of the Bishop Auckland article, where there has been constant attempts to make him a notable resident, resisted by many editors. Having lotsa subscribers doesn't make you notable. Our normal procedures have kept this under control at BA -Roxy thedog17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Obviously, we can't change the internet, but, with how these individuals are coming and using Wikipedia for clicks in their social circles, or trying to get recognision. It's a problem that needs addressing.NeoJadeTalk/Contribs20:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps, though, I'd be inclined to disagree as there is some use cases of his name in reference to other people, such as on theTommyInnit article. So I'd be unsure exactly of how the edit filter should apply, as outright disallowing the edits, whilst would be helpful, would also hinder some wikipedians.
Other than that, most the other settings wouldn't do anything, as this group has already been warned several times about the malicious nature of their edits, and obviously, the issue is that this group is,in my opinion, abusively using wikipedia as a platform for clicks and causing a more than warrented amount of hassle for the good faith wikipedians involved. Additionally because this group has beengaming the name already, I'd be inclined to believe that this would cause further issue.
In an ideal world, we would just contact Jack, both to educate him, and get either the involved videos removed, or an edit made to make it clear the action is not condoned, to hopefully stop new people seeing the videos and coming here. It very much seems to be a case of, the times its mentioned in his videos, or in some form of media related to him, we get an influx of people deliberately trying to add his page again. But, I doubt that it is a truly possible solution.NeoJadeTalk/Contribs15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair this isn't the place for Youtubers to spread their fame on so this nonsense needs to stop, one person commented on the video and said it was nonsense, well I hate to be rude to that person but it is not nonsense they should read this essay atWhat Wikipedia is not. I watched the video before.98.235.155.81 (talk)19:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we need to create a new filter for this type of behavior, this JackSucksAtLife disruption behavior is getting persistent and annoying.98.235.155.81 (talk)19:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I find quite a few things on Wikipedia annoying (and even a PITA) but maybe some of the possible solutions, apart from boring old blocks and saltings as things occur, would be even more annoying.Phil Bridger (talk)19:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree with this, wouldn't want to create a more annoying solution for editors trying to add good faith edits.
Perhaps, however, an edit filter to warn users, just to try and urge them to stop, and tagging the entry. With administrators checking, working onpresumed consensus could go through and delete relevent edits, or perhaps even oversight edits, to attempt to curb the behavior. Additionally, sanctioning repeat offenders who create these pages, perhaps? It's, I'll admit, somewhat annoying for those who have to check through, whilst however doing something more to make it clear we do not want this behaviour on this platform. Would that be something we can gain consensus agreement on, and something that both handles the situation, while also being relaxed enough to allow rule-abiding edits to be made?
Additionally, perhaps administrators, or the WMF could contact Jack, and just explain how his behaviour has led to an annoying amount of trolls on various pages on wikipedia, in a completely educational sense, could help curb his mentions of Wikipedia in his videos, which might also curb some of the waves we recieve of these edits.NeoJadeTalk/Contribs20:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I just want this nonsense of JackSucksAtLife to stop, I hate this Youtuber now and won't even subscribe to him for feeding the trolls for 6 years.98.235.155.81 (talk)21:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I understand your opinion, but, we don't just jump the gun on stuff like this when its making us angry. Especially because there is another side to this, even if its completely against our policy. There is a large group of a few hundred, if not thousand people, who dislike that their favourite creator is not on Wikipedia, and believe, especially given there are "articles" on him, that he is notable. Remember, we on wikipedia try to always assume good faith.
Personally, as much as our time is being wasted here, and as much as I personally believe they are behaving in bad faith, I think the bottom line we need to stand for is educating, as from what I have seen of the creator, both him and his audience are clearly misinformed of our procedures and standards. Hence why I came to AN to ask for an administrative opinion and guidence. As clearly current methods of handling this aren't working, and as of recent videos from the creator, he is still somewhat misinformed as to why an article of him currently doesn't exist.NeoJadeTalk/Contribs22:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies I just don't want the name of that Youtuber being mentioned anymore, he is a bad influence on the project, and thus should be disallowed by the filter.98.235.155.81 (talk)22:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
He has, in addition, had a 5 second monologue somewhere that I can't since find, saying to his fans "give wikipedia a break" but, surely he would know saying nothing is better for getting this to stop, right?NeoJadeTalk/Contribs23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
NeoJade, I think we have successfully handled this over the past few years through deletion of drafts and putting protection on some page titles. I'm not sure why there is urgency at this particular moment in time and I have no idea of what kind of alternative solution you thought would emerge from a discussion on AN. It's not like any of us has a direct line to the article subject and can ask him to not encourage his fans and we definitely have no control over the thousands of viewers of his videos. We have limited means to deal with the articles and drafts that get created and while it might be a "waste of time", all vandal-fighting could be considered a waste of time but it's also necessary. We can discuss the possibility of a new edit filter but I see no magic antidote to protect the project from new editors creating dumb new drafts that just end up getting deleted. It's annoying, sure, but it's something we all try to address when we run across them.LizRead!Talk!02:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe this discussion should continue at the Village Pump. What we are seeing with Jack Massey Welch or Jacksucksatlife is the same as we have seen at Battle for Dream Island. That is Internet fan clubs of people and phenomena who are widely documented by unreliable sources, and the fan clubs are determined to get a Wikipedia article for their person or game. These clubs try to get the article into Wikipedia by the stealth maneuver of changing the spelling of the title in various ways. This does not work, because Wikipedia volunteers are not stupid.
What may eventually happen is that someone looks forreliable sources that have documented the person or phenomenon. By this time, the fans have become their own worst enemy because most of the volunteer reviewers react negatively to any version of the name.
The Arbitration Commitee has resolved bymotion that:
Following a successful appeal of theirsite ban to the Arbitration Committee,WMrapids (talk·contribs) is unbanned. Thetopic ban andinteraction ban, which were passed at the same time as the site ban, remain in force.
Further, WMrapids is subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this motion, and every twelve months thereafter.
I just full-protected the article for 12 hours because of the edit warring and told the participants to work it out on the talk page. Unfortunately, quite experienced editors are edit warring. I'm off to bed in about an hour, and probably won't be on-line again for about 10 hours. The protection on the page will probably need to be renewed in the morning.Donald Albury01:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What am I not understanding about page restriction editnotice?
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As the instructions say, it's supposed to be placed as an editnotice, not in article text. See the article talkpage, where someone else explained this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Changes to the functionaries team, September 2025
At their request, the CheckUser permissions ofVanamonde93 (talk·contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Vanamonde93 for their service as a CheckUser and their continuing service as an Oversighter.
I just singed up as a monthly contributor a week or two ago. Today when I went to check something on Wikipedia, I was surprised to get a request to contribute. Thinking I had to sign in , I created an account. And then I got an account creation error. What gives?
Note that donating to the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with your Wikipedia account. Donation records are not attached to accounts.331dot (talk)14:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I've redacted the personally identifying information provided by the OP. I'll remove the account-creation prohibition from the pblock, but the OP is cautioned that if they are the same editor who was pblocked on this IP range from the article in question, a resumption of the behavior that resulted in the pblock will be frowned upon. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm porting over an unblock request from the talk page ofUser:Eni.Sukthi.Durres for review from administrators.
Hello. I have returned to request another unblock for my account. I want to explain the reasons why my account was previously blocked: I added exaggerated and non-essential content, and when it was removed, I became frustrated and reacted poorly because I had spent a lot of effort on those edits and insisted on keeping them. I debated using inappropriate language, and in one case a comment I made was misinterpreted as a threat. AsWP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents notes, “Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact”, which perfectly describes my situation. I have reflected on my actions and worked on improving my English to communicate more clearly and avoid misunderstandings. I now understand the importance of adding relevant and verifiable content, following established guidelines, and engaging respectfully with other editors. If unblocked, I will focus solely on constructive contributions, carefully consider the relevance of my edits, and approach discussions calmly. My goal is to contribute positively, particularly to articles related toAlbanian football and thenational team, which I am passionate about.Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk)02:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the unblock request is a good one and I'd be infavour of an unblock here; however, as this user was blocked 2 years ago and has had a number of requests declined I believe it's worth getting further input. I was not around for the initial incidents so if administrators who were involved see issues that I'm not seeing I'll default to their judgements.
I've had a look. These things are always difficult to make a call on but on balance I'm happy toendorse an unblock as well.WaggersTALK12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse unblock. I believe that the most recent unblock request is genuine and addresses the reason for the block and associated concerns adequately. I look forward to their positive contributions. --Kinut/c20:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Conduct of User:Sutyarashi on Ghulam Ahmad Bilour
This isn't ANI. This is AN. Anyway OP has said they will open a thread on RSN. Given the tone of some of their posts in this discussion, OP is advised that using LLMs to generate discussions here is frowned upon. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[[File:Afghan Kakezai Bilour TeamPage 2019.jpg|thumb|Evidence from the 2021 AKWT page showing Bilour’s role: Screenshot of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190515022345/http://afghankakezai.com/team.php Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust team page] from May 2019, featuring Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour and other members. The site also includes a dedicated "Kakezai" tab in the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190102041634/http://afghankakezai.com/files/directory.xls community directory], and states its mission as: “We work to improve the living standards of the identified displaced and underprivileged Afghan Kakezai communities through interventions such as quality education, vocational & skills training, protection, legal aid, health, enterprise development, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic development initiatives.” Ghulam Ahmad Bilour is listed as Chief Patron, indicating formal affiliation with the organization and the community it represents.]]
I am reportingUser:Sutyarashi for repeated, unilateral removal of reliably sourced content fromGhulam Ahmad Bilour (seehere andhere andhere), without consensus or policy-based rationale. Despite being challenged on the Talk page, they have:
Removed archive-backed sources (AfghanKakezai.com, Khyber News, The News) that support Bilour’s Kakazai and Bajaur lineage
Replaced them with an unsourced, polemical opinion essay from theCritical Muslim series (not peer-reviewed) under Oxford University Press imprint
Repeatedly refused to justify the reliability of that source
Accused me of edit warring despite clear edit summaries and sourcing
Invoked policies likeWP:BURDEN andWP:CONSENSUS inappropriately to assert control over the article
Their behavior raises concerns underWP:OWN,WP:GATE, andWP:SCHOLARSHIP. The full timeline of edits, diffs, sourcing rationale, and policy references follows:
On 1 September 2025, Sutyarashi made thisedit with the edit summary, "Ed, rmv WP:BLOG and WP:FRINGE, added sources" thereby removing
"Afghan Kakezai Organization".AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved2025-02-01.The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.[1]
Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012).Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77.ISBN978-1-84904-223-9....Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.[3]
No consensus was sought or explanation was provided on the talk page as to why the original source was removed.When Ire-added the source...
"Afghan Kakezai Organization".AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved2025-02-01.The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.[1]
...along with...
Eight Years have Passed Since the Death of Bashir Ahmad Bilour. Khyber News. 2020-12-20. Retrieved2025-09-01 – via YouTube.Description states: "Bashir Ahmad Bilour...belongs to a prominent political and social Kakazai family of Peshawar," referring to the Bilour family's ethnic affiliation.[4]
...as well as...
Ali Shah, Syed Inayat (2008-11-05)."Personifying the art of politics".The News (Pakistan). Archived fromthe original on 2011-07-28. Retrieved2025-09-01.Known as Haji Sahib in Peshawar, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).[5]
He left acomment on the talk page calling ""Afghan Kakezai Organization".AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved2025-02-01.The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community." a blog underWP:BLOG and the video's description unfit forWP:RS underWP:CIRCULAR, calling themunreliable andobscure.When I gave a comprehensive rationale, heaccused me of using verbose and LLM and asked me to repeat with less "verbosity."When I challenged his source
Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012).Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77.ISBN978-1-84904-223-9....Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.[6]
by pointing out:
"Only one of the 20+ sources in Ghulam Ahmad Bilour’s article is from the book Pakistan?, which carries the imprint of Oxford University Press (OUP). Although published by OUP as part of the Critical Muslim series, the essay in question—“Peshawar Blues” by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad—is a polemical, unsourced opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed academic source. The Critical Muslim series is produced by the Muslim Institute and Hurst Publishers; it includes satire, polemics, and advertisements, and does not follow an academic peer-review process. The cited article (p. 77) offers no citations or scholarly sourcing for its claims about the Bilour family. Its tone is anecdotal, not ethnographic or academic, and it failsWP:RS andWP:SCHOLARSHIP for biographical or ethnological claims.
The 2010 The News op-ed is by a non-expert (an accountant in Dublin), contains no citations, and uses slurs like “Khariaans”. It does not meetWP:RS orWP:BLP.
The invocation ofWP:FRINGE is misplaced. Ethnic origin is not pseudoscience. Both Peshawar and Bajaur are verifiably sourced and can coexist under WP:NPOV. Removing one fails WP:DUE. Attempts to suppress reliably sourced content while dismissing counterpoints raise concerns underWP:OWN andWP:GATE.
He reacted strongly and immediatelyremoved all of my edits with the edit summary, "Rmv non scholarly/tabloid sources per third opinion provided by WP editors and other concerns. Please don't add them back without establishing their reliability at talk page first. If you think OUP source is non-RS, feel free to take it to RSN"
My statement (22:14, 8 September 2025) explains the sourcing in detail and challenges the claim that the opposing source — a polemical essay in Critical Muslim — meetsWP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Sutyarashi relies heavily on a piece titled"Peshawar Blues" by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, published inCritical Muslim, and reprinted by Oxford University Press. However:
The piece has no citations,
It is an opinion essay, not academic scholarship,
Critical Muslim is not a peer-reviewed journal,
OUP publishes both scholarly and non-scholarly material.
Despite all this, Sutyarashi insists that the burden lies on me to prove the source is unreliable, while refusing to demonstrate that it is reliable — even after I challenged it perWP:BURDEN andWP:RS.
Relevant Policies Being Violated:
WP:BURDEN – The burden lies with the editor adding or defending contested material to show it complies with sourcing policy.WP:SCHOLARSHIP – The essay being used does not meet the requirements for a scholarly source.WP:CONSENSUS – Removal of well-sourced material also requires consensus.WP:OWN – Sutyarashi is treating the article as their own, reverting others' contributions and gatekeeping sources.WP:GATE – They are blocking reliably sourced but inconvenient content from inclusion.
I am requesting administrator attention on this matter. The user:
Refuses to justify their favored source's reliability,
Unilaterally deletes well-sourced content from newspapers of record and direct interviews,
Accuses others of edit warring for restoring legitimate content,
I am not willing to take this to RSN, as I am not the one adding or relying on the disputed source. The burden lies with the person adding or defending it. This kind of selective enforcement is toxic.Administrators, please advise: What policy-based objection is there to theAfghan Kakezai Welfare Trust citation when it is used narrowly, underWP:PRIMARY andWP:DEADREF, to identify an organizational listing — not to establish broader ethnographic claims? Why is verifiable information about Bilour’s Kakazai heritage — including being Pashtun, Kakazai, or hailing from Bajaur Agency — being excluded, while an unsourced essay is retained without discussion or consensus? These identities are not mutually exclusive and are supported by reliable sources. Why can't they coexist underWP:NPOV? Why is having Hindko-speaking and hailing from the inner city of Peshawar more important than a Pashtun Kakazai hailing from Bajaur Agency? Why can't they co-exist, given that they are supported by the reliable sources? It is important to reiterate that these deletions occurred without establishing consensus on the article’s Talk page, despite active discussion and detailed counterarguments.I am requesting administrative intervention to stopUser:Sutyarashi from continuing unilateral deletions of reliably sourced content, and to evaluate whether their conduct meets the threshold forWP:OWN orWP:IDHT. Thank you.
References
^ab"Afghan Kakezai Organization".AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved2025-02-01.The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.
^Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012).Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77.ISBN978-1-84904-223-9....Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.
^Eight Years have Passed Since the Death of Bashir Ahmad Bilour. Khyber News. 2020-12-20. Retrieved2025-09-01 – via YouTube.Description states: "Bashir Ahmad Bilour...belongs to a prominent political and social Kakazai family of Peshawar," referring to the Bilour family's ethnic affiliation.
^Ali Shah, Syed Inayat (2008-11-05)."Personifying the art of politics".The News (Pakistan). Archived fromthe original on 2011-07-28. Retrieved2025-09-01.Known as Haji Sahib in Peshawar, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).
^Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012).Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77.ISBN978-1-84904-223-9....Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.
Let's see if I understand the situation. You disagree withSutyarashi about what the article should say, and about which sources should be used. You have reverted one another back and forth a couple of times. There has been some talk page discussion, mostly between you and Sutyarashi, and you attempted to start an RfC to get more eyes on the matter; the only responses to your RfC have been one person observing that it failsWP:RFCBRIEF, and another which seems to be someone disagreeing with your position. I don't know why you aren't willing to take this to RSN - you can't say that the other party in the disagreement is the only one direlying on a disputed source, you are obviously both disputing one another's sources. There are alsodispute resolution channels you could have explored. Unless there is something I am missing, this is a fairly commonplace content dispute, leaving aside the back-and-forth reverting which you have both engaged in. I would suggest that you try dispute resolution - admin noticeboards do not resolve content matters.GirthSummit (blether)14:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Girth. To clarify a key point: I did not undo Sutyarashi’s additions. I preserved them and added additional reliably sourced content alongside them, with clear edit summaries and detailed explanations on the Talk page. My concern here is not just a content disagreement, but a persistent pattern of conduct:
Repeated removal of reliably sourced content without consensus
Refusal to engage substantively on RS or sourcing policy grounds
Dismissal of any opposing sources as “blogs,” “tabloids,” or "obscure" without justification
Insistence that I prove their source is unreliable, reversingWP:BURDEN
Attempts to control article content despite Talk page pushback
Assertive, one-sided interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, used to gatekeep and justify deletions — raising concerns underWP:OWN andWP:GATE
That said, I take your point and will open a focused RSN thread. If the same conduct pattern persists through those channels, I’ll re-approach ANI with a clearer trail.
Thanks for the follow-up, Girth. Just to clarify your comment — while it may "look" like a revert at first glance, the underlying edit history shows that I preserved Sutyarashi's additions and built upon them, rather than reverting them wholesale.
'"Bilour was born in aKakazai family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied atEdwardes College and married soon later. He hails from Bajaur Agency, and comes from a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."
"Bilour was born in an oldHindko-speakingPeshawari merchant family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied atEdwardes College and married soon later. The Bilour clan hails from the inner city of Peshawar, and are a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."
"Bilour was born in an oldHindko-speaking merchant family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied atEdwardes College. The Bilour belongs to a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."''
When Imade my edit, I preserved Sutyarashi's core additions — such as "Hindko-speaking merchant family" and "inner city of Peshawar" — and added reliably sourced material on Bilour’s Kakazai and Bajaur heritage alongside it. At no point did I remove their material or revert back to a prior version.
By contrast, their edits repeatedly and unilaterally removed everything I contributed, dismissing it via summaries such as:
Yet I was the one who initiated an RFC and attempted to seek consensus, while facing constant resistance and accusations of unreliability for sources described as "blogs", "obscure", or "dead" — without proper policy-based engagement.
So while I respect your framing of this as a content dispute, I do believe there is a pattern of ownership and gatekeeping that has gone beyond ordinary editorial disagreement, and which I documented in good faith at ANI.
Still, as you advised, I will now open a focused RSN thread to address the underlying RS concern directly.
Hmm… not saying if it is LLM generated, but maybe it is at least partially, considering at minimum the tone, but I'm not going to say it's in any way definite37.186.35.134 (talk)17:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you can post here, you are not blocked. If you have an account that is blocked, your need to log in and post to your user talk page. If you never edit, though, you don't need to worry about it as blocks only prevent editing.331dot (talk)11:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Since they don't edit, it doesn't affect them. Even if they did want to edit, the partial block does not prevent them from doing so to every page or article on Wikipedia but one.331dot (talk)11:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I do see that it prevents account creation- it could affect them if they just tried to visit from another Wikipedia.331dot (talk)11:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I've reblocked removing the 'account creation blocked' part - honestly that should be disabled by default when pblocking an IP, IMHO. And I've seen cases before where rangeblocks somehow manage to stop IPs outside the blocked range from creating accounts. That said, if the OP was actually caught by the pblockhere, the pblock is clearly working as intended. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Are youUser:ClarkKentWannabe editing logged out? If so, you shouldn't be editing at all as that account is blocked. If you are not them, then why are you posting on their User talk page, out of all of the millions of pages you can successfully edit?LizRead!Talk!05:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
There's some new spambot making the rounds of various projects, injecting crap about customer service numbers at various airports. I've seen reports of this on eswiki and simplewiki. Here's atypical example from simple. I'm sure this will reach enwiki at some point. I suggest admins get aggressive about blocking,WP:G5, and creating edit filters when it happens.RoySmith(talk)23:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Just for some extra info, poking around at the listed Twitter account in the infobox for the article gives some interesting posts and info. To start with, this isn't the first time we have had an article for Gunther Fehlinger as it was deleted in 2023 under a different name:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Fehlinger. Back then, the account tried to get their followers to keep the article. (1,2) In any case, it seems that the account has gone back to trying to get followers of the account to canvas Fehlinger's article to prevent it from being deleted. --Super Goku V (talk)07:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I think this situation is more complex than a simple accusation and quick block would call for. This editor is related to the article subject, was informed about our policies about editing with a COI and is trying now to abide by them. Let's give them a little time to respond to the warning they have received.LizRead!Talk!22:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I uploaded a file, but perWP:NFCC it should be deleted. Rather than letting the full week run out, it could avoid some disputes if an admin deletesFile:Iryna Zarutska.jpg early. It was meant to be fair use, but the article is locked, so it cannot be added to the page and a couple of editors on the talk page are trying to come up with a free image. Deleting the file early could reduce some of the disputes around the article.Rjjiii (talk)02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks @Barkeep49, I didn't remember not to rely on jargon :D
About "replace IP addresses", yeah, sometimes I present it this way too, although - a little clarification for the sake of those who haven't heard about the project - it's not that simple. They kinda replace IPs (they aren't registered so they do inherit some ofWP:UNREGISTERED includingWikipedia:IP editors are human too which could get renamed intoTemp accounts are humans too), but purely technically, they are a new layeron top of IP addresses, so some 1:1 comparisons don't make sense. I wrote more about this inthis comment.
It may feel complicated but as a geek, I think it's pretty interesting. It opens up new options like reduced collateral damage on good-faith users impacted by range blocks.SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)14:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase atWikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on theelection talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
I don't think this is a difficult close—even if I set my own viewpoints on the issue aside, to my eye there's a clear consensus particularly among people who did not participate in the original RfC. But it's a closure review, so someone ought to do a formal assessment of consensus.Ed[talk][OMT]18:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP article on the husband of the new/current interim Prime Minister of Nepal
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not saying the editor who created the article did anything wrong. It's a political hot topic (in Nepal, and perhaps other places), so the article should get some more eyes on it. I could be completely wrong and the article could be 100% OK.TurboSuperA+[talk]12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Justification regarding the article. The plane hijack is not a negative event in history of contemporary Nepal when it was to fund the movement. Having been member of the then youth organization, he was party of democratic movement. In the same process he was jailed while other details are not much known. His own auto biography speaks the facts as written. His own biography written by Mr. Subedi himself is mentioned even in bibliography section. Hope it will be reviewed and refined more with more contents available on media regarding him. For the same, i'd better keep update tag on the article.Franked2004 (talk)14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I've started a dicussion on the (now redirect's) talkpage. More eyes are always appreciated, but I'm not seeing any behavioural issues that need addressed, and I do agree with the article creator that the hijacking isn't quite as negative as it first appears. It is falling pretty nicely in that "is this guy a freedom fighter or a terrorist" topic area, though, but I think we can keep discussion at talkpage and (maybe) the BLP/N thread.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋19:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Elmidae engaging in edit warring, "I can't hear you" and possibly WP:OWN at Antechinus
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Elmidae has dug in their heels on the notion that an article should not be intelligible to the reader without consulting the article's sources. I think this is a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, but they do not seem to be open to constructive dialogue.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk)14:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Either there is no behavioural issue or it's with 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (is it ok to call you that?), who has misrepresented Elmidae's position (I don't know whether wilfully or accidentally). I can see none on the part of Elmidae. The article has been protected to prevent you both from edit-warring. Just talk civilly on the article talk page.Phil Bridger (talk)14:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wanted to create theSatyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam redirect as an alternative spelling forSathyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam. But it is apparently blocked due to some previous socking blacklist forPrem Khan. Would appreciate if an rd can be created here (or the blacklist removed?). Thanks.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure what to do with respect toDraft:Ethan Brunton andEthan Brunton. It looks like the created first started working on the draft back in June and might've felt they weren't getting anywhere; so, they decide to create the article themselves in the mainspace instead earlier today. I don't know if it they did a copy-paste move or started anew, but the subject almost certainly doesn't meetWP:NBIO orWP:NPOL, given the sources cited. I was just going to draftify the article, but then noticed the draft. What's the best thing to do here? FWIW, I only came across these pages while checking on the licensing for some files uploaded by the creator. --Marchjuly (talk)12:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've deleted the article and advised the closer against such closures. If there's a procedural reason why the discussion should be reopened and reclosed, I'm sure someone will tell me; for now, lazy as I am, I've left it as it was. --DoubleGrazing (talk)08:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi I've been trying to make meaninful contributions to a certain wiki page, however the administrator is making unfound accusations to undo these changes. The language used was disrespectful and harsh, how can I report an administrator?J05n99 (talk)13:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
You can describe your grievance here(after you formally notify Hammersoft of this discussion as instructed at the top of this page). Be aware that your own actions will be examined as well.331dot (talk)13:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concern Regarding Unverified Claim About Akan Language Speakers in Ghana
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope this message finds you well. I recently came across a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_language) claiming that about 80% of Ghanaians speak the Akan language. The page cited a website ( "Akan (Twi) at Rutgers". www.amesall.rutgers.edu.) as its source, but when I checked, the website does not exist (https://www.amesall.rutgers.edu/languages/128-akan-twi). I could also not find any statistics from the Ghana Statistical Service or any research-based organization to support this claim.
It is important that Wikipedia entries be backed by reliable sources. I respectfully suggest that the author of this page either provide an authentic and verifiable source for this information or remove the statement entirely. Presenting unverified information misleads readers and undermines the credibility of the platform.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I already notified them of this discussion. This is not the first time I've posted to AN. And I do think it was appropriate for me to bring this up here, as this is an issue of "general interest to administrators" and very few people watch that page in comparison to this one.Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To keep things short I was permanently blocked from theTemplate:Russia–United States relations and when I requested unblock the admin decided not to.Am I allowed to request the permanent ban be applied to both parties then (WikiCleanerMan) since both parties were involved with this ANI.This will allow other editors to take the lead from now on for the edits?I think its only fair both parties be held accountable and not allowed to make edits anymore, if its just one party (myself) then the other party (WikiCleanerMan) can go back and continue editing.I was not aware the other ANI had gotten archived, sorry for the late notice on this, I had intedned to append it to that ANI.-4vryngtalk22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Allowed to ask, yes. Willing to risk getting completely blocked instead of blocked from 1 page, that's another question. You should evaluate your options and see if you want to withdraw this question.SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Sarek, I understand what your saying. However, I dont believe this should resort in a permanent block for me from wikipedia, it seems just and fair both parties should be held equally accountable if one looks at the history of events that unfolded so that is all I was requesting. I was permanently blocked when I said I was concerned both parties would continue reverting each other, as had happened in the past but that should have resulted in a permanent ban of both parties not just one since I tried my best for 4 months to resolve the situation if one looks at the history. Outside of that I am doing my regular edits on other articles, life goes on as usual for me on wikipedia. I just wanted to bring this up to see if there was agreement with what I explained, if not I will move on.-4vryngtalk23:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The ability to WALK AWAY is one of the most vital for a successful editing career here. I forgot how to do it, and almost lost my admin bit. I resigned it instead, and when I first tried to get it back, the community didn't think I was ready. So, basically, if you don't go edit something else and pretend WCM doesn't exist, then... well, I tried.SarekOfVulcan (talk)00:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
If you get blocked for edit warring regardless of any alleged unfairness with how the other party/ies are treated best solution is still to concentrate on what you always needed to do and come to consensus on the talk page. If your preferred version is clearly superior shouldn't be too hard. That way you really "win" in the only way that matters. Who really gives a damn about the other party/ies not being blocked when you "won" the actual dispute? Only reason to care about blocks is if you think you can't "win" the actual dispute.Nil Einne (talk)00:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting partial block to 2806:2a0:1516:8eea:8000::/48
The IP range2806:2a0:1516:8eea:8000::/48 (talk·contribs) has been edit-warring for months at the pageMorena (political party). The user adds information that alleges the party is colluded with drug dealers, something I personally don't doubt. The issue is that sources cannot conclude such collusions since no one from the party has been on trial as such or the party has been determined to be a narco-political party internally or internationally. The IP adds multiple sources supposedly backing up these claims, but the sources themselves don't actually mention the claims, rather, they are the typical "if A and B then C" type of sources. The user has been asked multiple times, by several users,[6][7][8] to discuss the changes, which the IP has openly declined, as the user thinks that theWP:TRUTH shouldn't be censored or discussed.[9][10]
I'd explain the issues but they sometimes fall into BLP issue as the commentary added by the IP is simply not backed by the sourcesexample 1,example 2
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I posted aclose challenge (with full support and encouragement of theclosing admin) only to be subjected to an immediate flooding of opposing users demanding I be topic banned.
1. Arguments made in the close challenge are citations of the previous appeal efforts with the closing admin, who acknowledged numerous valid points in the arguments, encouraged me to file a close challenge, and offered to co-author it. To characterize the initiating incident here as a “further example” of my inappropriate behavior in the topic space is unsupported and was pushed through by a group of users.
2. The close challenge was only discussed and adjudicated by those who rushed to the page, not participants of the previous RFC and moratorium discussions, who had not yet even been made aware of the filing.
3. I was banned almost immediately by a "consensus" of a uniform group of editors, including one who hascamped out on the Zionism talk page, and others showing up within a few hours of my post (despite it only appearing on AN and the closer’s talk page).
4. I do my very best to abide by all expected rules and procedures, and learn/improve as I go. I am committed to receiving criticism and advice to ensure I am improving as an editor. I was tbanned based upon supposed “transgressions” that were not adjudicated in a thoughtful manner. I believe a proper assessment by impartial admins is warranted.
Oppose the topic ban was an appropriate response to battleground behavior and reopening that appeal again would be disruptive on its face. I would suggest Allthemilescombined1 find some other topic to edit on.Simonm223 (talk)23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmm I agree that the topic ban thread was closed too hastily. In my !vote, which was the last before the discussion was closed, I put forward a cogent argument for editing restrictions for Allthemilescombined1 beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict, as another thread open at ANI at the time initiated by Allthemilescombined1, nowarchived following the tban, displayed Allthemilescombined1 doubling down on some rather absurd personal attacks against Cdjp1 in the context of work on antisemitism topics. Discussion should have been allowed to continue in order to consider my suggestion of broader sanctions.signed,Rosguilltalk23:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
If the topic ban is too narrow I wouldn't be opposed to examining whether additional scope is required. But I don't think readmitting this editor to IP pages would be a net positive.Simonm223 (talk)23:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment: most of this appeal revolves around accusing other editors of malfeasance, and fails to touch upon the reason why the user was tbanned to begin with. I'd recommend Allthemilescombined1 to withdraw it before a boomerang hits them.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈23:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I am notWP:INVOLVED with respect to this topic as an admin, as I have only commented in an admin capacity at ANI and have not participated in editing or discussingZionism, although you are of course able to solicit further admins' opinions.signed,Rosguilltalk02:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
In yourtopic ban, you were advisednote that in most cases editing productively and without controversy for at least six months on other topics is considered best practice before appealing. Yet, here you are a little over a month later (with minimal editing activity since then) appealing your ban. I'm not sure a mentor is going to help here.EvansHallBear (talk)19:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Just to add, this appeal seems unlikely to succeed for many reasons including that mentioned by EvansHallBear. After 6 monthsfrom now perhaps you can appeal while seeking a mentor but there's no point worrying about one now when you will remain topic banned from the area.Nil Einne (talk)19:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Editors seem to think a more fitting restriction might be an site ban and the more you try to argue against your topic ban the more likely editors are to agree. Generally the time to argue for a weaker sanction is either before it's imposed or well after when you've demonstrated maybe we can trust you. Not in the immediateish aftermath where you try to say we were wrong for what we just did. Note I didn't participate in the original discussion AFAIK but still say "we".Nil Einne (talk)00:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I would like to know why Allthemilescombined1 is choosing to once again misrepresent what@Chetsford: said to them regarding challenging the closure of a discussion? This misrepresentation is continually repeated despite Chetsford having previously clarified it. --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2025, (UTC)
Support as proposer. Enough is enough. Allthemilescombined1 has failed to get a clue and continues with their disruptive behaviour after the community has made them aware that the behaviour is not welcome.TarnishedPathtalk03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Simonm223 just to point out that they filed at ARC on 1 August, and it was closed the same day. Mind you, I guess that means they didn't withdraw their request. A good point about reviewing NOTTHEM; perhaps that should be a condition of their unblock appeal in six months? (Thinking SO.)—Fortuna,imperatrix11:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks FIM. I'm aware the ARC request was closed very quickly. I more meant that they withdraw this appeal of their topic ban. I thought the topic ban was an appropriate outcome of the ARC request considering their past history of the page. I understand they also tried to get it overturned at AE? My principal concern is that Allthemilescombined1 seem unwilling to abide by their topic ban and edit something unrelated to Israel/Palestine. If they withdrawthis request and accept that they were topic banned I would be less likely to be concerned that enhanced measures are necessary to prevent disruption and as we should not be punitive, if I have confidence they'll abide by their topic ban, I don't see as much reason for a block.Simonm223 (talk)11:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I had floated further sanctions in the section above, but to be honest I was thinking something more along the lines of an added topic-ban from antisemitism per the issues with AGF and Cdjp1 that I highlighted. I am not certain that there's been enough disruption to justify a site ban.signed,Rosguilltalk14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. This proposal is excessive and troubling. I find it politically driven and biased. Every editor has the right to argue their case, and it is particularly important, also from a gender perspective, to ensure that women (in this case, someone from Women in Red who works to promote women’s biographies) are able to speak out without being silenced. This suggestion strikes me as extremely disproportionate and harmful to the principles of open debate.שלומית ליר (talk)11:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I would not hinge my argument on their participation inWomen in Red Shlomit, as most of their contributions in the area are of dubious quality and relevance, as has been highlighted to them on their talk page and in previous discussions of their conduct. --Cdjp1 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2025, (UTC)
Support. Editors have the right to argue their case, but not tocontinuously re-litigate their case forever, especially not on spurious grounds like these; beyond a certain point, when consensus is steadifastly against them, editors need to be able toWP:DROPTHESTICK and move on if they're going to be able to edit collaboratively. Allthemilescombined1 has continuously refused to do that; the fact that they felt it necessary to not just appeal their topic-ban but to try and continue the underlying disputeagain (after the RFC was closed, after a moratorium was placed on the subject, after the close-review was closed and after the editor has already been topic-banned due to their endless intransigence on this topic) shows a level of unyieldingtendentious behavior that leaves us with no real room for anything but a ban. Beyond a certain point editors need to be able to accept decisions they disagree with in order to edit on Wikipedia; Allthemilescombined1 has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in doing so and will continue to attempt to bludgeon our processes via every angle available to them on this so long as they have access to Wikipedia. Editorial time, energy, and focus is a limited resources and editors are not allowed to endlessly strive to consume it simply because they aredissatisfied with the outcome of our dispute-resolution mechanisms. --Aquillion (talk)00:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose perWP:ROPE, they make good contributions elsewhere. They got what they asked for, two admins weighed in, a warning to drop this now (where raising it again within 6 months would result in an indef) should be sufficient.Kowal2701 (talk)08:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I am in concurrence with Rosguill, that while this is a rather silly filing, there's not enough disruption in my opinion to consider an indef ban. --Cdjp1 (talk)11:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
While serious conduct matters that probably warrant some sanction, I do not like Indef bans generally, and in this case do not consider what we've seen to be serious enough, or in areas, that I would cross to supporting an indef. --Cdjp1 (talk)11:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It certainly is reasonable to request a review of a tban, especially if one feels that it was a pile on rather than a careful review of issues. Saying as much isn't disruptive. Moving to an indef is well beyond any sort of protection of Wikipedia. If the editor is tbanned and not violating that tban and not causing any issue in other topic areas then not only is a indef not justified, calling could be viewed as punnitive or simply trying to remove a viewpoint one disagrees with - note: I'm not saying that is the case here, only that such actions have been used this way in the past and should be avoided.Springee (talk)11:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’d like to request that an administrator or experienced editor closethis RfC about whether Wikipedia should declare, in its own voice, that a genocide is ongoing in Gaza.
I was going to make a request atWP:ANRFC and sawone is already active. I’m making a note here sinceGaza genocide is classified as “top importance” for several of our projects.
The RfC has run for 47 days. Over 90 editors have commented. Approximately 55 favor the proposed change, and c. 35 oppose it (I include, in that group, arguments for a procedural close). There is extensive commentary and data analysis from editors.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I appreciate that I was given a topic ban. I would like guidance on how it applies going forward. The topic ban was on "discussing whether or not any Pokémon characters are main characters". I understood that it could extend to discussion on supporting or background Pokémon characters and so on, as it might go around the essence of the topic ban and relates to the core issue.
But recently, I received a warning from the admin when I brought up a suggestion of keeping to characters that have English Wikipedia pages. I made the suggestion since it came to me, I felt it did not violate the topic ban and I thought the other editor might agree with it. I believed this did not violate the topic ban, but the admin indicated it did because the thread involved Pokémon main characters. I was like oh, I guess that makes sense, if I am continuing a discussion that brought it up, it could mean I am continuing in a discussion about main Pokémon characters. So I asked whether I could start a new discussion with the suggestion, but the admin advised against it, stating it involves which characters to include. But as I understood it, the topic ban applies to discussion of main Pokémon characters, not necessarily to discussions about inclusion criteria or notable characters.
@Master106 Topic bans are "broadly constructed", the essayWP:BROADLY tries to explain what this means. As a rule of thumb - if you genuinely cannot tell if an edit is covered by a topic ban it probably is.
It seems that instead of trying to argue which characters should be included based on which ones are "main characters", you are now trying to argue which of these characters should be included based on which ones are "notable characters". Even if this is not a 100% clear cut violation of the topic ban I imagine a lot of admins reviewing those edits would see them as a continuation of the disruption you were topic banned for, and would impose sanctions accordingly. I would advise you to stop editing those lists of characters completely and find something else to do, before you end up with a broader topic ban or block.86.23.87.130 (talk)20:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possibly undoing or enabling account creation on one of my old blocks
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So in March last year, I blocked41.75.160.0/19 (block range ·block log (global) ·WHOIS (partial)) for three years to deal with disruption in economy articles, but the earliest edit I can find meeting that description is abouta month beforehand (therefore, it seems to me now that three years was a very much disproportionate amount of time for which to block this range ). I would therefore ask that the block be lifted ... exceptthis database query shows a very large number of blocks of open proxies by the no-longer-activeST47ProxyBot on this range (see for instance these block log links[11],[12], and[13]), which are common withCarrier-grade NAT systems in Africa like Uganda where this range is from, which give me pause about the idea of unblocking it, even if I could (but perhaps enabling account creation on the range might work out too). Coincidentally (or not), the last IP whose block log I linkedadded some spam just before their block in March 2024 that I'veonly just reverted. I can't remember if the open proxy threat factored in to my calculation of the block length in this case. I opened this thread in response tothis message on my talk page. I'd be OK with any decision that's made here.Graham87 (talk)11:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I lifted the block. African IPs (among others) tend to almost always show up as proxies. There aren't assigned a whole lot of IP addresses and many IP addresses have many users on them.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)12:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greece men's national basketball team - Depth chart - Unreferenced edits
I would like to ask for the administrator’s attention to the section “Depth chart” in the articleGreece men's national basketball team. This section used to include in a depth chart table all the players of the national team who were recently called to the team and participated in various recent tournaments (friendly, qualification and major tournament games). Those players were placed in the table according to their positions as they were referenced in the official page of the “Hellenic Basketball Federation”. In addition, there were further references from the Greek media indicating the coach’s selections among those players over the past months, in order to justify the team’s depth per position, as it was presented in the table.
However, at some point in time that table was changed by a user to something that is totally unsourced, while all previous citations were removed. The table now only includes the roster players of the last tournament (EuroBasket 2025), while some of them are put in different positions from what it was referenced, not only via the official page of the Hellenic Basketball Federation, but also via the FIBA EuroBasket webpage. I tried many times to revert the table to a state supported by citations, but that user kept changing it until we were both blocked from further edits and the page remained since then to that state. His argument is that there is no specific reference needed for that table, as those are the only players included in the EuroBasket team roster. You can see more details for that in the talk page of the article and what he wrote to my personal talk page, as well as you can see his aggressive approach and the personal attacksWP:PA towards myself ([14],[15],[16]). Apparently the positions are now assigned according to how those players were used in some EuroBasket games and not how they are referenced in reliable sources based on their natural position.
Regarding to all this, I would like to point out 2 things:
1. A national team consists of more than the 12 players used in a roster for a specific tournament each time. A team roster is filled out by a selection from a reserve pool of players according to various factors, such as type of tournament, player availability etc. For each tournament the roster can be different. The depth chart does not aim to show the tournament roster which is presented separately in a different section in the article or in other articles. It aims to show the reserve pool of the team. Otherwise it doesn't add any useful information to the article.
2. Depending on the game, a coach may use a player differently in various positions, even if those are not the player’s natural position. However, this is not what the team’s depth chart is meant to show. It shows the depth in options and the reserves per natural position. This is a usual misunderstanding for many editors and as a result I often see people changing the table after every game, especially in regards to the starting lineup, based on how the coach used the players in that particular last game. Even if a player is going to be used in a team differently from his/hers natural position for the most part, in any case this has to be referenced by reliable citations, and I do not think there is a more reliable source from the team’s federation.
Regardless how this table is going to be finally structured, it must be supported by reliable sources. Please take all the required actions for this issue includingWP:RV and if neededWP:RFP. Thank you in advance.Clicklander (talk)08:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
No I didn't open a discussion, I commented in the discussion and the dispute is for another reason: Whether or not this table is original research. To me it is notWP:OR, it is information presented in a table, but this is another topic. What I am saying here is that if such a table has place in the article, it should always be supported by reliable references as perWP:REF.Clicklander (talk)12:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Well if you're not willing to discuss your content dispute you could voluntarily refrain from editing so we don't have to block you.Nil Einne (talk)12:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I think my point is clear. Please remove first unsourced content and then anyone is free to express his/hers opinion how this table should be structured and if it is really needed.Clicklander (talk)14:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes and our point is clear. If you make demands and edit war and refuse to discuss your content dispute, you are part of the problem and likely to be blocked for it. Your refusal to discuss is fairly ridiculous, verifiability is fundamental here so if the problem is really so simple as you allege, it should not be hard to convince a third party of the problem even if not those you are in dispute with.Nil Einne (talk)15:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Whether I want or not to discuss my content is not your business. Your responsibility as an administrator is to check if the edits made in Wikipedia articles are according to Wikipedia regulations, and that's what I request here, your attention to those edits. As for if I am willing to discuss that dispute, I think if you look at the talk pages you can very well see who was the one who wrote first there regarding this dispute, who asked the other party to contribute to the talk page with his arguments and who was the one who clearly refused to get into that discussion, made personal attacks from the beginning and wrote by word "This is crystal clear, with no room for dispute...".Clicklander (talk)16:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Clicklander, re:"Your responsibility as an administrator is to check if the edits made in Wikipedia articles are according to Wikipedia regulations" That isn't the role of administrators on Wikipedia. Please seedispute resolution for further steps to take if discussion on the article talk page fails to resolve the disagreement.Schazjmd(talk)16:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee received a report relating to off-wiki coordinated editing in theEastern European contentious topic area. Following the completion of an investigation into the report and the private evidence provided, the Committee has passed the following motion:
For long-term off-wiki coordinated editing,Sadko (talk·contribs) andБоки (talk·contribs) are indefinitely banned from participating in the same community discussions as one another, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Francisco Rodríguez is an economist that is of high political significance and NoonIcarus (as I show below) has long been aware of his significance in the politics of Venezuela. In reviewing Rodriguez's "The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012–2020", Richard Feinberg identifies Rodriguez as a “political economist”, who challenged the talking points of critics of Chavez and Maduro by identifying other causes for theCrisis in Venezuela:
the country’s excessively powerful executive branch (and winner-take-all politics) and the maximalist economic sanctions imposed by the first Trump administration. Rodríguez is particularly critical of radical elements within the Venezuelan opposition and diaspora for drawing the United States into “scorched earth” sanctions against Venezuela’s oil exports, which impoverished the country but failed to trigger regime change.[1]
NoonIcarus has been well aware of Rodriguez’s political importance. On8 June 2020, he added wikilinks to a sentence of a reference to a book co-authored by Rodriguez,Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. On10 June 2018 he changed to the heading of the section whose first line was “Rodríguez was an early supporter of the Chávez administration.” On20 November 2023 NoonIcarus revised “he served as the head of the economic and financial advisory of theNational Assembly of Venezuela.” There are numerous other edits like these to the article and other articles that make it clear that NoonIcarus has known of Rodriguez’s significance for Venezuelan politics, and that he wanted Rodriguez’s opinion removed.[17]
The request for an SPI investigation follows a pattern of NoonIcarus challenging editors of the Rodriguez page of a COI.[18] This included a reporter who interviewed Rodriguez who repeatedly insisted he had no COI.[19][20][21]Because of NoonIcarus’ssteadfast insistence there was a COI, the reporter left Wikipedia in disgust on 1 October 2021, with thelast words , “SO, I sincerely do not care anymore. Congratulations, you sucked the joy of editing some things due to your…approach on Wikipedia editing. It is a shame, Venezuelan articles need better editors. FAR BETTER.”
NoonIcarusrefused to remove the COI tag whenasked on 17 August 2022. The COI tag was still on the article in October 2023—a full two years later when NoonIcarusedited the article.
In August 2023, NoonIcarus followed his pattern of removing material attributed to Rodriguez that challenges the legitimacy of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela with the claim in the edit summary of a COI.[22]
NoonIcarus’s previous skirting of the topic ban; his continued preoccupation with Rodriguez and the editors of the Rodriguez page and other Rodriguez material--to the point of making multiple COI accusations over the years, even accusing a reporter of a COI who vehemently denied it and was thus driven away; and, now requesting a sock puppet investigation on the Rodriguez page on a single admin's talk page—rather than atWP:SPI…It all makes one question whether NoonIcarus is really willing to abide by community sanctions placed on him or whether he thinks they are simply at his discretion to ignore.
* Below,NoonIcarus expressed legitimate concerns about my referring to the old account name which he says caused online harassment. I understand the concern and am sorry that putting the old name in this post could cause future problems, and I will avoid it in the future. Years ago when the new name showed up, I mistakenly thought it was a different editor with similar behavior--It took a while for me to connect the two accounts. So for a while I included the fka for others who might be similarly confused. That may have been inappropriate then, and I'm sorry if I should not have done it. Indeed, enough time has passed that it is generally no longer helpful, so I did not include it in my posts about NoonIcarus in August.
In this filing, I included the fka, because the old name showed up inthis diff and thecurrent talk page of the reporter I mention above, and I again wanted to avoid confusion.
I believe the best solution to avoid any future reference to the old name is to fix this diff and any others, if they exist, that still have the old name. If an admin wants to strike the name from this post, I'm fine with that. I am also happy to review every time I used the old name like this, so it can be stricken from the record, if an admin. would find that helpful to protect NoonIcarus. Please let me know if that is the case and where I should submit those diffs to help address the potential problem.
I'm reading NI's post at Callanecc's talk page as a question about whether it would be a TBAN violation to file an SPI (hence the "I want to be careful about the current topic restrictions"). Having never heard back from C, NI never did file at SPI. We generally encourage editors to ask an admin if they're not sure if a given edit will or won't violate a ban. For the record,NoonIcarus, you can't file such an SPI, and I would recommend unwatchlisting the Rodriguez article. If you have any further TBAN questions, be more conservative in how much information you include. This one would have been better as "Am I allowed to file an SPI related to accounts active atFrancisco Rodríguez (economist), or would that be a violation of my TBAN?".Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)13:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I saw edits about Rodriguez before I saw this AN (since I created the Rodriguez article in 2010, I receive notifications when links are made to it, and that is what I check first when logging on). Rodriguez's article has a recent history of puffery and original research. In the last round, it was cleaned up byScope creep, but the article was edited after that by thesame editors blocked on the es.wikipedia. Rodriguez is now withCenter for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR); for context (possibly related to interns editing), please seeTalk:Mark Weisbrot andWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp/Archive for a history of connected and paid activity. I had not seen the August post to Callanecc's page until reading this, but had already independently noticed the problem (and more) at Rodriguez when I got a notification to his article this morning. Had I known about the socks on es.Wikipedia, I could have saved myself a lot of editing time. Re the (old) post to Callanecc, I agree with Firefangledfeathers; NoonIcarus asked appropriately, and FFF's advice is sound. It is unfortunate that socks can continue at en.Wikipedia because the rest of us don't notice or aren't aware, and fortunate that NoonIcarus doesn't email others about these things, rather asks transparently on Wikipedia. But he can ask more briefly.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
PS, I am out of time today, so unless an admin looks into blocking the socks already identified on es.Wikipedia, and examines other recent editors at Rodriguez, I'll file the SPI tomorrow.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That was another fact that I mentioned at the Spanish SPI request, so just the fact that the COI tag was removed is troublesome enough. --NoonIcarus (talk)14:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree with FFF. I have started to work on this, and NoonIcarus, it is better that less involved editors are looking at it and coming to their own conclusions. I have found several issues of concern, but need to take them private until I understand if OUTING applies. I will be delayed here aswe are having a rough day; it would certainly be faster if I could just ask you, but it's better that you aren't involved. I hope to be able to work on this later today, unless things continue to fall apart at home. The problems seem to be bigger than those presented so far, but I could be wrong.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Separately, David Tornheim has not adequately reflected his own COI wrt Venezuela on his user page,[23] and yet has been a driver in every dispute resolution discussion about NoonIcarus (sample of most recent, where I did not opine). I suggest Tornheim be cautioned about his attention to NoonIcarus' editing, as he appears overly focused on removing views that oppose his own from Venezuelan topics.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
First, I'd like to ask David to stop using my old username, it's not the first time that he does. I asked for the change for a reason. It's not something that I hide or deny, even with my own concerns (instead of, say, starting editing with a different account). The redirect to the user page is still up in old comment for anyone to learn about the relation. By repeatedly using it, he's putting me in more harm's way that I already have been through so far.
I asked Callanecc as the closing admin of the decision precisely out of respect for the topic restrictions (and I have previously done so when in doubt for as little asa 19th century boat). I wanted to file a SPI request forJuanpablo1415 andYsa4532 because a CheckUser at eswiki already confirmed that both accounts are related to each other and blocked, and the other alternative was waiting for the accounts to get stale, but I didn't take any action since I didn't get a response.
David was canvassed to the discussion preceding by TBAN andhas admitted to following my edits for months now. Him ignoring or omitting the CU at the Spanish Wikipedia, particularly at a time when I have done my best to stay away from Latin American politics for over a year, suggests that this complaint is not made in good faith, that he wants to see me banned at all costs, and speaks volumes more of his own behavior than my own. --NoonIcarus (talk)18:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I address your concern about the old namehere. No, I do not want you "banned at all costs" and have never recommended it. I haven't noticed any problems with your edits outside of Latin American politics. The two responses fromFirefangledfeathers here are sufficient to address what I was getting at. I thought you should have known better not to make the request for the SPI, which included detailed facts justifying the request, to an admin. with CU privileges who could conduct the SPI. Admittedly, Callanecc was the admin. who imposed the TB and would be an appropriate admin to ask about potential edits that might violate the TB. The question about whether it was appropriate felt more like aCYAafter the request and justification for the SPI that introduced the request, i.e. the post focused on "I want to request the SPI" and here is why, rather than "Is it okay for me to..." as explained by FFF. And again, I felt you should have known that it was inappropriate for you to request such an SPI on a clearly political article of Venezuela. So FFF gets at what I saw. I would just like you to be more respectful of the TB rather than your need to edit that topic area which you have been instructed to lay off of. I hope that makes sense.--David Tornheim (talk)11:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Reading the page forFrancisco Rodríguez, it's not apparent that he's a politician, or even a pundit. Looks to be an economist. This seems a bit overcooked to me - and surely identifying SPIs is more critical. Also, they were simply communicating with the closing admin on the topic ban to confirm whether such a submission would be okay. Also this was a month ago - reallyUser:David Tornheim?Nfitz (talk)22:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I've hit a dead-end on this, and there's little more I can do.
A. Checkusers can't do anything with stale accounts and blocking the accounts already identified on es.Wikipedia will accomplish little. New accounts can easily be created, and an SPI would likely be closed as stale and createmore problems than it solves, so I've decided not to pursue that avenue. We can only hope for more eyes on articles related to CEPR, where there's a long history of SPAs (possibly related to well-paid, well-advertised internships) that disappear in short order, and need education in Wikipedia P&G.
B. The COI dialogue on both en.Wikipedia and es.Wikipedia initially revolved aroundthis image, uploaded by Naldox as "own work". I am not familiar enough with how Commons works to comment.
C. But there were content COI red flags as well.WP:COI, applies to any close association (external role or relationship) that "could reasonably be said to undermine [a Wikipedia editor's] primary role "to further the interests of the encyclopedia" ... whose "mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally ..."
"He is the first Venezuelan to obtain a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University", and original research, puffery, editorializing "one of the foremost experts on the Venezuelan economy. An important strand of his research" ...
The "first to obtain" bit is personal information not based on any source I'm aware of, and the kind of content that sends up COI red flags.
"I met Francisco in September 2017 in Caracas, but didn't have a chance to interview the guy. But he left mark. I believe he is one of the most intelligent people I have met."
"Most intelligent people I have met" reinforces the question of whether this person can write neutrally about the subject.
"Not a family connection nor a business relatoinship (sic). My career resumé is public at Linkedin and my media career is public in the several different news outlets I have worked for."
and
"... as I discussed with Wikimedia Venezuela on Twitter a few days ago ..."
So many questions. A COI is not only a "family or business" connection. Naldox indicates he spoke with Wikimedia Venezuela on Twitter and references their public information on Linkedin. We don't have access to what was disclosed in that Twitter conversation (nor should we, probably), and any assumptions seem imprudent.
That leaves the matter of what looks like David Tornheim's over focus on NoonIcarus. And repetitively using his previous account name, in spite of the dangers known; could we have the same respect that so many of us have accorded to other banned users with respect to issues of personal safety in Venezuela?
Tornheim hasn't sufficiently disclosed his ownactivism and COI in the Venezuelan realm, and yet has been a driving participant in assuring NoonIcarus stays topic banned. I ask that David Tornheim rethink most of what was written above, consider re-evaluating unwarranted allegations, and stophounding NoonIcarus's edits. Bringing something this old to AN serves what purpose? Why not just inquire of Callanecc, the admin who imposed the topic ban?
We've missed the opportunity to identify socks, that were blocked months ago on other Wikipedias, and more, but I won't digress. An article that no one was watching was puffed up on en.Wikipedia by users blocked on es.Wikipedia, and no one noticed. The article was considerably edited by someone whose likely COI was not noticed or dealt with on en.Wikipedia, until it was called to attention here. And IMO NoonIcarus was right to leave the COI tags in place, right to remove an opinion article as it was used, etc.
I have unwatched most Venezuelan content since the arbcase, and CEPR-related articles as of years before that (futile with so many new accounts constantly appearing), but when I check back on a few articles, I find the POV, SYNTH and puffery growing, with no one left to address that. Please ask yourself whether the Project is being well served with respect to Venezuelan content.SandyGeorgia (Talk)00:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I supported NoonIcarus' topic ban last year, but decided to abstain from the appeal earlier this year and let other members of the community discusss it out. I'm commenting here because there's a lot comment above which misses the point. I'm not suggesting any further action, but the community's decision not to remove the topic ban appears correct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk)12:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Babyshark2
I created a talk page thread (not edit) at the Hamas talk page to address a simple procedural error that shouldn’t be of controversy (a country is improperly colored on a map). This user not only reverted my TALK page thread, immediately insulting me, but has continued to childishly revert what should be an objective situation. A look at his editing history shows that he has a history of inflammatory attacks on other edits and overall appears to be fairly unstable.41.189.250.10 (talk)16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
The IP's edit request which I denied simply read;Hamas is a TERRORIST organization not a political resistance, and I denied it on the grounds of that being a very controversial statement, and per my interpretation ofWP:TERROR. They made a second thread stating:Paraguay has designated Hamas as a full terrorist org and should be designated as such without providing a source. I leave it at that (1/3 due to not being fully in-the-know on all the political guidelines, 1/3 due to being in school, and 1/3 because of an ANI rightfully filed against me). Coming back to it, they statedThis isn’t arbitration. It’s a miscolored map. I believe that it seems there was a misunderstanding.☩(Babysharkboss2)22:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
@Babysharkboss2, you reverted the IP's talk page comment 3 times (with unhelpful edit summaries) before finallyexplaining that extended-confirmed status is required to discuss on that CTOP article. If you'd done that on the first revert, that would have been more effective.Schazjmd(talk)23:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I should note that the article itself, in that very same section of a edit-protected article, with sources, states verbatim that In April 2025, Paraguay expanded its designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.” My request doesn’t need sources. It’s something any second grader can read and comprehend since it’s only sentences away from the map. In fact it’s the only reason I knew that the map was wrong.41.189.247.4 (talk)17:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Meh. I'm with SFR. Its a simple fact with easy sourcing (already in the article as pointed out by the IP) that could have been handled at the map page but we're blowing it up into a five alarm fire just because its an IP (not everything has to be a battle). The IP doesn't seem to have a history of this and they now aware of CTOP. I've made the request at the map talk page for a color change since I have no clue how to edit a SVG file. If it doesn't happen in a few days, I'll figure it out. I think this can be dropped at this point unless we want to make it a bigger deal than it needs to be and spend more time on this.spryde |talk20:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
One more thing, unless Verizon Business has a point of presense in Djbouti, I don't think those two IPs are the same (ALL CAPS TERRORIST IP vs Paraguay Map IP).spryde |talk20:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
1. There is no edit restriction on this page, so I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’m not breaking any rules “(here of all places).”
2. Even after going back and reading the template that I literally couldn’t see because I’m clearly on a mobile device, I was still well within my rights to do what I did. “You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page(except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).” My edit requestcan’t be disruptive, as it is literally a restatement of sourced material that I didn’t put on the page and had no say in.41.189.250.10 (talk)10:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Posting here, on AN, isnot making an edit request, and thus the ECR restriction, which applies toall edits...related to the topic area, broadly construed, applies, and thus you did, in fact, break it by posting about it here. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:BANEX permits banned users to engage in dispute resolution at appropriate noticeboards. On what grounds should we impose a stiffer standard on IPs in this topic area? In this situation, the point of ECR is to prevent people from doing disruptive things; it's absurd to use ECR-as-applied-to-Israel-Palestinians to object to someone engaging in good-faith dispute resolution at this noticeboard.Nyttend (talk)07:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The subtle difference in that essays section is"a single commonly recognized common name" vs. policy of"the name that is most commonly used". That section is otherwise justwaffle with inaccurate/misleading examples of failed RMs. The rest of the essay is good, but I wouldn't give that part much weight personally.CNC (talk)09:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor Actually, the definition of theWP:COMMONNAME issingle, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic, notthe name that is most commonly used. Both of these fragments are present in the policy section, but the first, stricter one is the actual standard that is applied, and "prefers the name that is the most commonly used" is the lead-in to the actual standard which sets criteria for "most commonly". —Alalch E.16:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, [...]", as expressed by the additional four words before your quote, is about naming articles when COMMONNAME doesn't exist (per the extended version of the quote). It has nothing to do with defining a common name, it's an example of a topic not having an obvious one.CNC (talk)17:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
No, your understanding is just wrong, I'm afraid. The definition of this Wikipedia term of art is precisely "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by independent, reliable, English-language sources". If it isn't the "single most frequently used" name it isn't the COMMONNAME. "Single" meaning: If there are three options, and option 1 is used 40% of the time (the most common name), option 2 is used 40% of the time (equally the most common name), and option 3 is used 20% of the time, the COMMONNAMEdoes not and can not exist. If if is ostensibly the single most frequently used name, but it is not "obviously" the most frequently used, again, the COMMONAME as defined for our internal purposes does not exist. In the above example, if the distribution had been 42% (the single most common name)—38% (second most common, but the margin is small)—20%, again: option 1 is technically the single most common name, but it is not the single most common nameobviously, and it is therefore not the COMMONNAME. —Alalch E.18:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
It was closed correctly, as, a little surprisingly, it appears that the use of "assassination" is so widespread in sources currently, contrarily to previous practice that we're more used to, that "Assassination of" is, in fact (truly suprisingly so), legitimately the real, Wikipedia-grade, COMMONNAME. —Alalch E.18:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I saw that earlier. They do hit: A COMMONNAME only needs to be the single most frequently used and obviously so, in relative terms, which means that in a 30%, 20%, 15%, 15%, 10% distribution, option 1 is technically is the single most common name and it is so sufficiently obviously, because the margin is pretty big. (It's not likeWP:PT1, which has "more likelythan all the other topics combined") —Alalch E.18:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, I don't know the protocol for this, but given there are already some collapsed sockpuppet !votes, would it be appropriate for a checkuser to do some checks to make sure multiple accounts aren't being abused? I see a lot of accounts with sub-200 edits who just showed up conveniently for thisWP:RM... —Locke Cole •t •c03:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it wouldimperative for a variety of admins and CUs to scour that discussion given the optics, but I don't know how it would work or when. Or if. It just seems like a good idea.
The consensus is more rename every day. If you look at it day over day, it seems to accelerate in normalization of the term in media and in there for support.
I suggest someone immediately protect the page afterward from moves, indefinitely.
That was one account that had been reported to SPI as an LTA. I don't think special anti-socking intervention is needed here. Closers on high-profile discussions know to apply NOTAVOTE particularly strongly. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
It is unusual for sure, but this happens a lot with breaking news events. A lot of fairly new editors come out of the woodwork to post their thoughts. I've done it too. I do think a checkuser could be useful, but only if you have reason to believe any particular editors are socks. UseWP:SPA for that.guninvalid (talk)03:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Scrolling through and skimming, I'm working from the assumption that based onWP:ASSASSINATION andWP:KILLINGOFTITLE (a shortcut I just created), this should be called an assassination if and only if that is theWP:COMMONNAME. Scrolling through and skimming through the sources being brought up, it almost looks like aWP:SNOWBALL argument that "assassination" is the preferred term. So far the only linked articles I've seen that don't use the term is one fromThe Verge and one fromWP:DAILYMAIL.guninvalid (talk)04:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the tricky part is theWP:SUSPECT (BLP) concerns with naming it an assassination without having even secured a conviction. Plus I know some editors consider newspapers and news channels to be primary sources, which makes using them a bit more problematic. —Locke Cole •t •c04:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The thing is I've clicked through probably 2 or 3 dozen articles, including some that were originally labeled as non-"assassination of", where the wording or other context has been changed to include assassination. Hilariously,this CNN article brought up byMYCETEAE 🍄🟫 originally called it a shooting, but that's just below a video labeled "Who is the suspect in the Charlie Kirkassassination?" There were also a couple other sources fromThe Independent,The Guardian, and theBBC that I did not find "assas" using ctrl+f, which tells a pretty clear story that sources outside the USA are somewhat behind on the terminology. USA sources have pretty quickly coagulated on calling it an assassination.guninvalid (talk)04:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't realize that wording was changed, although I am not surprised. This was a challenge while looking for sources to begin with, as many were part of "live update" pages with frequent content changes. RegardingWP:ASSASSINATION, just noting again that this is part of an essay, not a policy or guideline. I read it as a fairly strong caution against using "assassination" unless there is a high degree of agreement in sources; I'll let an uninvolved admin evaluate this. The absence of guidance on this in P&G has been raised several times in the thread. Anyway, I agree it would be helpful to have this closed. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk04:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Going through all the links I could find while skimmingrevision 1312003447, out of the 60-70 links given, almost all include "assassination" either in the URL, the title, or somewhere in the article. I did not explicitly look for "shooting" or "killing" since I was mostly trying to rule-out "assassination" as opposed to supporting another title. Of these articles, I was only able to findThe Verge,The Guardian, andThe Independent not using the term. I also found thisthis NYT article that I can't currently access and can't confirm its wording, even with ctrl+f. The Guardian calls it a shooting and The Verge calls it a killing, and the Independent has referred to it as an assassination in several other articles. All three of these articles were from September 12. With all this, and the fact thatAP News has "CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION" as one broad category along the top of the page, I think it's fair that theWP:COMMONNAME cannot exclude "assassination". The jury is out on whether "assassination" or "shooting" could be "co-COMMONNAME" or something along those lines, but if I were closing this, I would close it in favor ofassassination without prejudice for a future "shooting of" RM.guninvalid (talk)04:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Also FWIW, the close is currentlyunderway byBD2412. Why the summary wasn't applied before closing the discussion, and moving the pages, I will never understand. But I hope the summary will be a good one.CNC (talk)16:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The move was probably a good one to at least close the discussion ahead of a proper closing, since it's very unlikely anyone could seriously challenge this close this late into the cycle. But I can and will still whinge about the result. Grumble grumble...guninvalid (talk)16:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
If the basic idea is that it needs to be moved, can't we just move the damn thing now and have people write the collaborative essay later?jp×g🗯️05:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
While I agree editors can collaborate and write a postmortem style essay about it later, also agree with O.N.R. to give it a few hours. And to note what guninvalid said, I also see pretty clear consensus and the sourcing to support these policy-driven !votes, as roughly2:1 3:2 even with some down-weighting (I didn't vote in the RM as am neutral, but am otherwise involved in the topic btw). That's not to say it doesn't need an experienced closer with a decent summary, just not convinced this is panel-worthy as being a tight call. If it were, we wouldn't talking about closing it already, but instead waiting a bit longer for consensus.CNC (talk)09:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Based on my past experience and my estimate of the current political situation, I would only recommend users deal with the issue if they are perfectly anonymized (one can not guess the connection to their real name, and the connection has never been provided in the past). We know that even this is unfortunately insufficient but at least puts higher barriers for real-life harassment.--Ymblanter (talk)08:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion as moved. Based on the above, it appears that the consensus inthis discussion was that a panel close was not necessary for the RM.BD2412T16:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was accused by Onel5969 of having a Conflict of Interest regarding an article I wrote entitledDrex Lee. I photographed the subject Drex Lee with his permission at the 2025 Bild Expo Presented by B&H Photo after his talk along with 177 other photos I contributed to wikimedia. I noticed that there was no article regarding the subject Drex Lee. I wrote the article using sources from the internet and following the style of other notable influencer wikipedia pages. I do not personally know Drex Lee nor do I understand the Accusation of Conflict of Interest with the subject. Please Advise?Tzim78 (talk)14:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@Tzim78: please point to where you wereaccused. All I could find is the draftification notice on your talk page, which apparently had the 'you may have COI' option ticked. That's hardly an accusation; it's barely an enquiry. If you have no COI, then you simply need to state that. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(No need for the talk page message, I'm aware of this.) The autopatrolled requests page is currently fairly backlogged, so I would expect there'll be some time before someone's able to respond to your request,Sswonk. That being said, if any administrator here would like to help out with the backlog, that would be appreciated.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)17:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there any way non-admins can help with theWP:RFPERM backlog? I feel as though this is one area where non-admins might not be able to help as much without getting in the way of admins.Relativity ⚡️00:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Relativity, non-admins who have particular experience in certain perms can be helpful - for example, NPPers frequently nominate other editors for autopatrolled and respond to those requests with endorsements or concerns. But less is more. And for many of the perms, no, there's not a lot that non-admins can usefully do. --asilvering (talk)23:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP's block evasion
Hello, @Johannnes89 recently blocked IP187.36.171.230 on16 Aug 2025, however IP evading this block with same pattern of behavior using open proxy. These are latest block evasions by:
They used different IP in recent weeks to make same or related reverts and unrefed contributions, which were at times undone by others but reverted by IP again, etc. If necessary, I will produce additional links with different earlier IP edits. Thanks.౪ Santa ౪99°04:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Certainly there are more articles where they make changes, regardles of sources, where they operate on personal POV, even dismising outright established academic stance based on their view on subjects etc. I've only chosen these few diffs from yesterday and today (depending on time zone), just to illustrate what's going on. Also, it's very possible that there are more IP addresses they using.౪ Santa ౪99°15:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Some of these diffs are quite stale, for example, 2804:388:A036:4FCE:5879:439:2135:F4F7 has made only 1 edit and that was in May 2022! What is your basis for connecting all of these IP accounts and asserting they are the same editor? It might be better for you to take this toWP:SPI although I think they might reject these claims based on the ages of the diffs. You'll need more evidence than what you have here.LizRead!Talk!19:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
They are not stale, they are dynamic; they come with 2804:388:A036:4FCE:5879:439:2135:F4F7 and after several contributions across the several days or weeks they interchngably use several Ips. The editor is activ constantly, evading block by using these different IPs. They edit from Brazil in very specific area; they almost exclusively edit on Bosnian history and culture from the Serbian nationalist stand point - how many Brazilians are interested that much in this topic, let a lone with the knack for very specific nacionalist tropes I can't tell but I would bet my life on this.౪ Santa ౪99°20:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
By the way, these diffs above are just one from each of just few selected articles - they made dozens of reverts across the five or six articles with unacaptable edit-summaries just in couple of hours last night. Hopefully, it doesn't pays off to be anonymous editor editing from open proxy dynamic IPs, making a mess in the process.౪ Santa ౪99°20:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@Santasa99, I don't see any reason to believe that these IPs are open proxies. They're all the same network, being used over time by what appears to be a single person, who is not blocked. So this isn't block evasion of any kind as far as I can tell. My advice is to try to engage with the editor on the article talk pages and go through theWP:DR stages as normal. --asilvering (talk)22:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Isn't this a block imposed on16 Aug 2025 on the editor who was using the following IP :187.36.171.230; after that IP got blocked, the editor continues to edit using these other IP addresses. It is not first time that I encountered this problem, but I would appreciate blocking admin to shed some light on circumstances. Other editors who confronted this IP way of contributing and interacting all fled, I am not sure this kind of persistant abuse can be engaged with.--౪ Santa ౪99°23:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
That's a proxy block - it's intended to block an IP, not a particular editor. If a proxy block also happens to shut up a particularly annoying vandal, so much the better, but that's not a block aimed at a specific person. --asilvering (talk)00:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, I am all out of ideas. The editor was involved in edit-warring with about anyone. Their explanations are unacceptable use of "vandalism" label, or outright dismissal of RS already in article with hash personal POV tone and labels, they're using refs without page No. or misinterpreting its content, refing statements with refs that either do not talk about stated info or are misinterpreted, and so on. I will try to file a report on 3RR (maybe SPI for using multiple IP addresses), but even that is complication as they use two or more IP addresses in 3RR.౪ Santa ౪99°00:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
@Santasa99, there's no need to file an SPI here. The editor does not appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry. If they are edit-warring, vandalising, etc, by all means report them to the relevant noticeboards when that arises. But I am not seeing any attempts at talk page discussion onDubrovnik Prayer Book, for example, and that ought to happen first. --asilvering (talk)02:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Nominations for the2025 arbitration committee election will start in just over a month. Given the significant commitment required to be an arbitrator, it's a good time to start thinking about candidates and the skills needed for the committee to be effective. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see thearbitrator experiences page.isaacl (talk)15:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd also add thatWP:CT/SA stipulates that pre-emptive protection of caste articles may be implementedwhen there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption. So major political parties? Sure, reasonable belief exists. Minor defunct parties which receive no edits likeSarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal? Not so much.Curbon7 (talk)04:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@Curbon7 The 3rd point simply states "WP:GSCASTE[a] is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction." It is a separate 5th point which states "Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE[a] when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption." From the way I see it, and the way it is framed, all GSCASTE articles have to be indef extended confirmed protected, and in addition to that, if admins feel so, they can temporarily full protect an article as a pre-emptive measure against disruption.EarthDude (wannatalk?)13:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
GSCASTE articles don't have to be protected EC, but the 'can be if there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption. Currently ARBPIA articles are protected by default, but once my current motion wraps up unifying the language to the ARBIPA language is on my docket.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)13:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish Hmm, I guess I had misinterpreted the arbitration. I will remove the RFPP entries that I had added which have not been disrupted in the past. Thanks for clarifying it for me. But I do personally think that CT/SA arbitration should be expanded so that all articles that fall under GSCASTE have to be, by default, indef EC. There's just way too much disruptive editing, ideological canvassed editing, vandalism, sock puppetry, etc., over there.EarthDude (wannatalk?)14:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
There is a very limited amount of admin labor available and using it to protect articles that haven't been disrupted and will likely never be disrupted isn't a good use of it.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, so as I said, I will be removing entries that have not been disrupted in the past. I don't think it will make that big a difference though considering that the majority of the requests I had filed were of CT/SA GSCASTE articles that have been disrupted in the past. I just personally believe that the restrictions set in place for Indian military history related topics, broadly construed, wherein all articles have to be, by default indef EC. Ideally such restrictions should also be put in place for GSCASTE. The issue of protecting articles that will never be disrupted is far less so than the current issue of hundreds of articles that are indeed regularly disrupted but where no protection or mitigation takes place. For instance, what prompted me to file all these requests was the realization that the article on theAam Aadmi Party, one of India's biggest political parties, was vandalized with severe POV and UNDUE additions. The vandalized version stayed in place for several days. When I looked into it further, the absolute vast majority of Indian political party articles had been regularly disrupted but had no protection or action. I simply don't think preemptive protection is enough for this topic. Anyhow, I will be staying within the bounds of the current arbitration.EarthDude (wannatalk?)14:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude, the idea isn't just "has been disrupted in the past". That's true of a great many articles. Is there reason to believe an article will be disruptedimminently? That is, an upcoming election, an ongoing slow-motion edit war, a recent visit from a vandal who will probably return, etc. Then, by all means, report. But if there isn't actually anything currently going wrong, admin time is better spent doing something else that's actually on fire. --asilvering (talk)14:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
It was, I believe. IPA and PIA have different wordings, and I think that using admin time to protect hundreds of articles that don't need it isn't a wise use of the effort. I think allowing for preemptive protection is sufficient.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
This reminds me of right afterWP:ARBPIA5 closed near the end of January, there were some admins doing mass protections in that topic area as illustrated in theJanuary andFebruary AE logs. Is there some tool or trick that allows these types of actions to happen easily?Left guide (talk)06:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
RFPP needs a single click responder, rather than the response tool that requires opening the editing window and selecting from a huge dropdown, a-laUser:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. That, combined with not having to log AE protections, should cut a lot of the needless work out of that process.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish I misread that as "RFPP has a single click responder", and the thousand-yard stare I just stared...
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A related question
Related to the above (thus a subsection) - when ECPing a page that is within a CT that is under mandatory, ARBCOM-imposed ECR, is it still a requirement (right now, at least) to note the protection in the log, given it is (functionally) a pro forma action? Because a number of Indian military history related pages have been ECP'd (I've done a few) and it just occured to me that I don't think they were logged. Should I go back and note them there? -The BushrangerOne ping only01:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP 88.251.82.151 (Special:Contributions/88.251.82.151) created 19 blank talk pages of redirects, stopping when told that this was pointless. They no doubt thought that they were being helpful and should not be sanctioned. I would like to request deletion of these pages.
In CSD circles, we regularly delete orphaned talk pages as CSD G8. Frequently editors who are not autoconfirmed or who are IP accounts create new articles on orphaned Talk pages since they are not able to create pages in main space. If they are an actual draft article, they are moved to Draft space, but if it's gibberish, which is much of the time, they are just deleted. If these are talk pages for existing redirect pages, no, they are not needed but I don't see any reason to delete them either. I mean, we have tens of thousands of unused Category talk pages that will never be used for any discussions but we just let them be.LizRead!Talk!06:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
My best guess is that deleting them is worse than keeping them. We still have to have the histories, etc, even if deleted, so it seems just as pointless to delete them as to create them. They aren't likely to get used, and creating redirects out of them seems pointless as well.Dennis Brown -2¢08:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree withDennis Brown. No benefit was achieved by creating them, but no benefit would be achieved by deleting them either. On balance it's marginally better to just leave them, to avoid unnecessarily complicating the editing history.JBW (talk)20:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Potential WP:OWN / WP:SOAP issues on articles related to Mikron
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mikron Group appears to be a russian semiconductor manufacturer. Various IP editors were making large to very large (1000 - 5000 Bytes) changes to its page and related pages (Semiconductor device fabrication, and somehowAvionics)
Extra note: from some of these IPs' edit warring summary is "please contact us at zeroseo@gmail.com", seemed like some sort ofSEO service providers. Might be worth an IP range block.
Edit 13:09: Strike through Avionics; not related to the subject (Mikron).
Edit 13:19: Added 5th IP
Edit 15:22: I did aglobal contribution search for this IP range and the pattern goes back to December 2024. All their contributions to English- and Simple-WP uses the same style of edit summary, (by starting with "※",) and most of them are external link / see-also spams, links are often a video onrutube. Diffs were merged into the main thread and labelled 7-13.
Their edits to SimpleWiki in December 2024 also got reverted immediately -AB
We might want to IP block the 2001:318:E011:C3/64 range.
I didn't post this to AN/I because it seemed quite under control and so far almost all added pufferies were reverted quite swiftly. This is more of just a nuisance than an incident.海盐沙冰 / irisChronomia / Talk12:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
This is actually a much bigger problem than the account above suggests. I've blocked 2001:318:e011:c3::/64, but looking further into the history I found that this is a long-term spammer, who has been active since at least as far back as 2017, when they were using the range 2001:318:E011:F:0:0:0:0/64, which has been blocked 5 times. Over the years they have spammed on numerous subjects, of which Mikron Group just happens to be the latest. This will need a good deal more checking, to see whether larger range blocks would be appropriate. It may also be worth looking for further spam to revert, but my guess is that there will be a huge amount of it, much of it buried in editing history over many years and many articles, so it may be impracticable to remove most of it.
The spammer's focus is heavily on Russian topics, but the IP addresses are from a Japanese company, so I don't know what that's about. I see they have also edited Japanese, Russian, and Simple Wikipedias.JBW (talk)20:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I have now blocked 2001:318:E011:0:0:0:0:0/56, which covers both of the ranges I mentioned. I haven't found any edits ever in that range which look as though they weren't by this person, so there is virtually no risk of collateral damage. I also haven't seen any editsoutside that range which look as though theywere by this person, but of course I may have missed some. 2601:58C:4303:16E0:75B8:82CC:DDDD:12A0, also mentioned above, doesn't seem related at all.JBW (talk)21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the brief period of time since Viceskeeni2's topic ban has beenrevoked, this user has already made some very eyebrow raising edits that I wanted to bring to your attention.
Baku Victory Parade of 2020 - Viceskeeni2 removed this background information from the lead, which may have had an argument (though one not discussed), but instead of moving it to the body Viceskeeni2 completely erased this information.
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War - IN addition to adding Wagner Group with dubious sources and no discussion, this violatesMOS:IBP because Wagner is not mentioned anywhere in the article outside the infobox.
Azerbaijanis - Several POV pushing additions, including a massacre linked to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia that wasdeleted here for having no reliable sources.
Military Trophy Park (Baku) - removing mannequin photos which most of the article's notability and text is referring to.
Qarabağ Khankendi - Adds the club being forced to leave during the war without any source.
First Nagorno-Karabakh War - Another IBP violation, apparently felt Soviet Armenia should be included if Soviet Azerbaijan is, despite the latter being supported by the article while the former is not.
Sisian - Adding an Azerbaijani name without discussion, something that has been reverted many timessince 2007 for lack of notability. And assuming Viceskeeni2 is the same person asViceskeeni, this would be continued edit warring from apreviously reverted edit back in February 2024.
There are also some incidents ofWP:HOUNDING me personally:
Aşağı Çaylı - Restoring the changes of a non-extended confirmed user that I previously reverted, on a small article that Viceskeeni2 has never edited before.
Vitaly Balasanyan - Another example of restoring changes of a non-extended confirmed user that I previously reverted. Was Viceskeeni2 planning to revert these changes as soon as getting unbanned?Vanezi (talk)18:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I’m on mobile right now because of travels and it was inconvenient to post in AE. Is it really necessary? I can ping all the admins who commented in the recent AE appeal of the user, if this works.Vanezi (talk)18:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Please read the AE appeal[26]. This user was given another chance at editing a contentious topic area with the condition that disruptive editing will likely reinstate the topic ban, per admin discussion. And some obvious bad faith editing like just plain and simple hounding of months old edits the same day one was unbanned isn’t supposed to be reasoned with on talk, even if we ignore the context of their appeal.Vanezi (talk)19:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Like I said, I am preparing my response right now. I have already respinded to one of the 2 allegations, now I'm working on responding to you so I'm asking you to please not take things out of context and try to convince admins to swiftly ban me again.Viceskeeni2 (talk)19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I have my defense ready against these allegations, however it is almost 8,000 characters long and I do not really have any way to shorten the text due to the vast amount of information it contains, that I have prepared to really defend myself from this, so I don't know whether to send it in or wait, especially because this is the Adminstrators board. I'll wait for the adminstrators response first.Viceskeeni2 (talk)20:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I referenced every single thing Vanezi has noted and gave extra examples, which is why it's so long. If you want to, I can send it here or somewhere else where you or someone else can review it and please correct my mistakes. Thank you for your feedback.Viceskeeni2 (talk)21:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Right now, Vanezi's analysis is sitting on this page uncontested. Your overlong response at your own talk page is probably not going to be reviewed. Please respond with brevity here,Viceskeeni2. There's no word limit here (hence our preference for AE), but hiding your points in impenetrably long text is unwise.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)21:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The parade: Vanezi said it, I did: Removing the references had an argument. I clearly stated thatStatements that have almost nothing to do with the parade & don't belong in the introduction, especially when one of them was recorded almost one year later. The statements in the parade that led Pashinyan to criticize it are enough. What I removed followed Aliyev saying something controversial aboutArmenia, with Pashinyan criticizing it. That part is fine & absolutely fits in there because it is part of the military parade proper. But what followed that belongs in e.g.Azerbaijani irredentism, but NOT the INTRODUCTION of a parade, where the part about the statements was longer than about the parade itself. Ironically, one reference by Aliyev is from August 2021, 9 months after the parade. These would fit into a part that focuses on the controversy, but not the introduction as they have minimally something to do with the parade.
Second war: I think I might've mixed 2 pages up or similar, as I don't recall the page not referencing Wagner. My edit was of WP:GOODFAITH, as I added further info to the page, but when I noticed now that it doesn't reference Wagner, I thank Vanezi for the feedback & immediately removed Wagner from the infobox.[27]
Template:Azerbaijanis: I didn't POV-push here as I only added info to the page e.g. diaspora/lamguage, but also to persecution. The added articles, besides Bashlibel which I removed now as I didn't know it'd been deleted before, are all sourced English pages & I seriously do not know what Vanezi means by saying I apparently POV-pushed, as I only expanded the category (not in any way at all forbidden, besides ofc Bashlibel). They also conveniently left out me editingTemplate:Armenians, adding info & events of persecution, showing I only expanded pages but didn't POV-push.
Military Trophy Park: Vanezi again conveniently left out my reasoning for the pics to be removed withRemoved 2 of 3 pictures of wax mannequins that were very obviously the focus here instead of the park itself. I removed 2 of 3 pics, letting one there & respectfully explaining that I believe it should absolutely be there withbut left one because it is important to keep it there. I also replaced a pic of trenches in the part focusing on mannequins with a pic of the mannequins[28]. If anyone doesn't get it: I ABSOLUTELY CONDEMN Azerbaijan showcasing the figures, that were later removed when it realized it's dumb. Besides, I did good contribs. to the page, adding 8 pics, with an image collage about a seize vehicle.
Khankendi FK: It's common sense that the club was expelled from the town they founded their club in, as they play in another city right now, due to a war where people of that country were expelled from that region. If the edit's original research, which I don't get how, I'll immediately remove it.
First war: That edit was later reverted with a proper explanation, unlike what AntonSamuel did. I double-checked the page & realized that ArmSSR was already referenced, which's why I didn't resist the revert but accepted doing a mistake.
Sisian: The old edit Vanezi referenced was removed due to there not being a SINGLE SOURCE for the edit, understandably. But here, I took 3 sources referencing the name & change in 1935/40, with one even being Armenian. I also didn't randomly add it at the top, but properly added it inEtymology, where it belongs as Garakilsa is the Azerbaijani name for Sisian & was the official name until 1940 (sourced btw). Had I done POV-pushing/disruptive editing, I would've e.g. not added fbaf fhe city wasrenamed to Sisian, recognizing that the original name's Sisian + on AzWiki, I removed the name Garakilsa, portrayed there as the official name, & fixed the mistake[29].
"Hounding": I didn't harass Vanezi or explicitly edited pages they edited. The 2 articles came in my way, likeAşağı Çaylı, I noticed it had info missing/wrong info & added new/removed old info. Had I harassed them I would've done more than this, looking at their contribs having removed a lot of sourced info due to GS/AA, understandably, & instead reverted their edits, which I didn't. The fact that him & me have edited the same page or that it's a small page I have "never edited" doesn't make sense, as we have edited a lot of same pages + there are tons of small pages I'll be editing in the future, so I don't get how this makes sense + Aşağı Çaylı is a small page too.
WP:HOUNDING against me: Vanezi & AntonSamuel randomly immediately reporting me at the same time, with the same expectation & reasoning + both being interested in Armenia/Artsakh + that Vanezi tried multiple reports to get me blocked[30] + when they hadn't edited in one month, then randomly appeared for their 3rd edit to be complaining about me, to prevent my unblocking, then disappearing & now AGAIN appearing only to complain & try to get me blocked (literally:isn’t supposed to be reasoned with on talk, saying that there is no need for any talk) after failed attempts, adds to the suspicion that they're trying to get me blocked again as they immediately complain when I edit. Thank you for reading this, name me my mistakes pls so I fix them. My edits were WP:GOODFAITH. I tried to shorten the response as much as I could. @Rosguill @Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq @Guerillero
@Vanezi: Before taking the time to assess whether certain edits are overdone or hounding and so on, could we please first focus on any edits which arewrong in some sense. For example, are any edits adding verifiably incorrect information, or adding clearWP:NPOV orWP:RS violations? If anywrong edits have occurred since18:07, 17 September 2025 when the "TBAN revoked" message was delivered, please select the most egregious and briefly explain that. That would be more digestible.Johnuniq (talk)10:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I wanted to go point by point because there is rebuttal to the claims the user made, but it’ll just encourage the long wall of texts. I’ll keep it very brief: the most objectively wrong edits areadding the Wagner Group as a belligerent on Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (which has beenthoroughly debunked and was never supported by reliable sources) andlinking to the "Bashlibel massacre" on the Azeri Wiki (half the sources are YouTube videos) after the English article wasdeleted for being a hoax. Granted the user has self reverted these, I don’t think self-reverting is some get out of jail free card especially considering that they were given a shortWP:ROPE at AE.
Their blatant denial of obvious things here such as the hounding is another issue that raises eyebrows. I can elaborate if asked, but I’ll keep it brief now as requested.Vanezi (talk)18:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Viceskeeni2, I'm interested in particular in your response about the Wagner issue. Your explanation above, "I think I might've mixed 2 pages up or similar, as I don't recall the page not referencing Wagner", does not make sense to me. What circumstances led you to add Wagner and the associated sources?Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
My guess is that I have either mixed up a page, where Wagner was referenced, with this page, which is why I inserted them in the infobox, OR that the page used to reference the Wagner Group, but that it was removed at some time, which is why I now also removed Wagner from the infobox after being informed that the page doesn't even reference them at all. What led me to adding them is that when I went through translations of the page, some had Wagner in the infobox, which is why I wondered "why doesn't English?" and, after looking further into sources referencing Wagner, added them with good faith that I was adding information about Wagner, not knowing that it wasn't even in the article. I apologize for making the mistake of adding Wagner and promsie to look further and double check sources and/or the page I'm editing in the future, so that I don't repeat this kind of mistake.Viceskeeni2 (talk)19:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I remember that before either this page or a page related to the second war referenced the Wagner Group, including the Wagner Group article itself where it mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh in their infobox, but I'm not exactly sure which one it was. The translations I had looked at was specifically the German one, where it referenced Wagner in an infobox, which is why I afterwards looked deeper into the material, especially fromthis page. Looking at my browser history on my phone (which is where I made the edits) the pages I took informations from was the page with the allegations (referenced before), Battle of Shusha, Wagner Group itself, some Russians translations and the specific German translation.Viceskeeni2 (talk)19:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I wanted to add that at the start I mean with page or page related to the war were German articles mostly, not English, which is probably where the confusion comes from.Viceskeeni2 (talk)19:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
When we unbanned Viceskeeni2 just two days ago, we said "conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return". My eyebrow is raised. I'm not buying the explanation about the hounding edits. I really don't like that Viceskeeni2 took sources from an "Allegations" page and—without independently verifying what is in the sources—used them for a wikivoice statement in the main war article. The other diffs show a pattern of unsourced edits and changes that are either POV-pushing or careless. Either way, we were expecting Viceskeeni2's best behavior, and this isn't good enough. I've indefinitely topic banned Viceskeeni2 from Armenia/Azerbaijan topics and site-blocked them for a month, both as arbitration enforcement actions.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)01:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unban request from Aleyamma38
REQUEST DECLINED
While respondents were fully supportive of Aleyamma's recovery and future as an editor, discovery of recent socking made subsequent !voters decline the request. Aleyamma is reminded of thestandard offer and is encouraged to avoid socking and reapply after an appropriate period (at least six months of no violations). — rsjaffe🗣️16:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's been almost five years and at that time I was facing mental health issues (I am a schizophrenia patient and lot of the WP:BATTLE happened because of my tendency to doubt on people) which is why I caused all the nuisance. Please unblock me now because now I have been cured thanks to medications. I admit I had evaded block twice but that was because I thought this account will not be unblocked and I will not be able to edit wikipedia but recently one of my friends in wikipedia said that this account can be unblocked and I can start using Wikipedia once again. So can you please unblock me, if you check my edit history other than WP:BATTLE/WP:IDHT, I have mostly done constructive edits.carred over by-- Deepfriedokra (talk)20:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Irrespective of the cause, it was behavior that led to the initial ban. The editor is promising better behavior now to get unbanned. It isn't callous, it is factual.Dennis Brown -2¢09:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Support The incident they were banned for was five years ago, and the circumstances that led to the ban are unlikely to recur, so let's give them a second chance.QuicoleJR (talk)01:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm disappointed about the socking. Aleyamma, please come back in six months to a year without doing any more socking, and I'll be happy to support unbanning. Until then, I must give a reluctantoppose.QuicoleJR (talk)16:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Support, it was a long time ago and evidently much has changed since, for the better. On a personal note, I empathise hugely, and wish them well now and in the future. --DoubleGrazing (talk)09:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Support, given the user's response to my question on their talk page. They note they aren't actually cured, but their mental health crisis is under long-term control. --Yamla (talk)10:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
{{checkuser needed}} I'm unsure here. Icannot immediately clear this from a CU perspective and have some concerns. I'd like another CU to take a look. I'll also note Aleyamma38 hasnot yet answered the question, "Please list your other accounts and when you must recently evaded your block." --Yamla (talk)16:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
A general note that socking in Asian television is unfortunately normal.
Flury and Split are confirmed to each other.Flurys' denial of being Jha could make that editor this one instead, and it would be consistent withthis story from Aleyamma38.
There are two unrelated accounts and two unlikely accounts associated with this IP. The rest are noted above.
All in all, I tend toward the belief that the Aleyamma38 has been socking at least these past 3 months. I'd put it at Likely personally. My general note above still stands as a point of caution.
I've deactivated the request for CU.@Yamla: please feel free to reactivate if something in what I've said doesn't jive to you and you can get a 3O on it.Izno (talk)18:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Izno. You are definitely seeing what I'm seeing. Frankly, for those without CU glasses, Izno is being somewhat kind in his write-up above. Given the likelihood of recent block evasion and given Aleyamma38's refusal to answer my question about their list of accounts, I have sadly changed my vote, above, to oppose unblocking. I do not believe their answer that they last evaded in July, 2024, is accurate. --Yamla (talk)10:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. My initial instinct was to support per all the above supports. I have first-hand experience of what it is like editing with a mental illness, but believe that everyone should be held to the same behavioral standards. CU evidence strongly suggests recent block evasion and failure to be open with us, so I have to oppose.Phil Bridger (talk)12:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur with the CU findings above. I have no doubt that the same person who eventually logged into the Aleyamma38 account was the same person who attempted to log into the Commonedits account. That means that either (a) they are that same person, and have not disclosed as much, or (b) they have attempted to hack someone else's account. I find the former much more likely (why would a third party attempt to hack a blocked account?), but either way, I can't support an unblock in these circumstances.GirthSummit (blether)15:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, sympathetic to mental health and glad they've found relief. However socking and lying about it is disruptive and grounds for not lifting the block.StarMississippi16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC closure review request at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 2#RfC: Should the name of the indicted suspect be included in the article?
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reasoning: I'd like to thank Beland for closingthis discussion however I would like to raise some points and supervote concerns. I do not see how the close is an accurate summarization of the discussion or even an appropriate application ofWP:BLP policy.
Beland didn't give any policy based rationale besides saying that editors considered it (which iscircular reasoning). Naturally every BLP dispute has consideration but that doesn't change the burden being on concretely demonstrating the value gained by including the name, which was not demonstrated.
Beland did vaguely mention the suspect's privacy not being necessary due to the name being in sources, however this is not howWP:BLP policy works. For suspects not convicted of crimes,WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources and defaults to exclusion. (Not to mention thatWikipedia is not news, and has significantly higher standards than American news media, which is whyWP:BLP policy exists for these cases).
Beland did not seem to considerWP:BLPNAME which also say that news sources should not be factored into the decision to include the name of a non-notable individual.
Even aside from these points, after reading the discussion it is not clear that there was a consensus at all.
A few other editors and myself raised these points (among others) with Belandon his talkpage, and Beland made an appeal to the principles ofevent based journalism as justification, howeverWikipedia is not news.
I have already responded to most of the substance of the complaints above atUser talk:Beland#Close Challenge; I will not repeat all that here but just respond to what is new. Yes, this article is not news journalism, but that hardly seems like a good reason for assuming that the "who?" part of theFive Ws is inherently uninteresting and unencyclopedic. This was one aspect where I did consider the strength of the arguments made: the idea that the identity of the perpetrator or credibly alleged and indicted perpetrator of a crime is unencyclopic in an article about that crime was successfully debunked. In this case the accused is also at the center of subsequent events - online criticism, swatting, doxxing, crowdfunding, and misinformation.
The complaint here seems to be that any reasonable application of BLP policy would demand exclusion, and that any editor who didn't explicitly mention BLP policy must not have taken it into consideration despite it having been mentioned in the discussion. But many editorsdid apply BLP policy, whether they mentioned it or not, and found the facts met the threshold for inclusion. I found the arguments for both inclusion and exclusion to be reasonable, and that outcome needed to balance a bunch of complex fact-specific factors. That is not the same as failing to take relevant policies into consideration. If I were to decide the outcome by making up my own mind as to whether the facts meet the threshold for inclusion, especially given this is a close call, I feel that would indeed be supervoting (which I am already being accused of doing). So, I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met. --Beland (talk)03:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Non-participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)
Overturn: Much of the arguments for inclusion rested on the fact that the accused has been mentioned in sources, but BLPCRIME already assumes that's the case. I don't think there was serious consideration of the privacy interests of the accused, who was a minor at the time of the offense, and even if there was, there were strong arguments in opposition that got short shrift from the close. A local consensus appears to have developed in BLPCRIME discussions, particularly related to killings that cause agita in the right-wing press, where large groups of editors (including canvassed ones) routinely show up to name and shame and advance a spurious interpretation of BLPCRIME that would have the exception swallow the rule.voorts (talk/contributions)00:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. These are completely unrelated cases. If you read my comments there, you'd know I'm not uniformly opposed to including the names of accuseds in articles.voorts (talk/contributions)00:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Overturn perBerchanhimez: "An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration".—Fortuna,imperatrix11:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Overturn The closer's rationale showed a poor grasp of BLP policy and was non-compliant. BLPNAME and LOWPROFILE don't go into abeyance just because some headlines of news publications include a detail. If anything we might want to consider avoiding the use of news articles whose headlines might lead to a BLP violation.Simonm223 (talk)11:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse accurate reading of consensus to include the widely publicized name of the suspect in the article. This is the correct interpretation of BLPCRIME which does not prohibit using Mr. Anthony's name in the article, but advises only that usersseriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime. Serious consideration was given to not use his name, and ultimately consensus was to reject this consideration.FrankAnchor14:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not Frank, but I'm making a similar argument immediately below. Starting from the top, the "yes include" !votes by FrodoMarsh, Penguino35, Nemov all show engagement with what BLPNAME/CRIME say, and to me seem to explicitly therefore meet that bar. (I stopped my explicit search for names in response to your question after those 3.) In addition, the discussion *as a whole* amounts to serious consideration: while I can't speak for individuals, I AGF that many of people who participated later in the discussion, on both sides, did so after familiarizing themselves with the points made by others, and therefore will have given consideration to their arguments before chiming in that (in their view) the stronger argument went one specific way. Doubtless, of course, there were some - again on both sides - who will have made up their mind based on gut feel and not seriously considered any contradictory view.Martinp (talk)18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
None of those !votes seriously considered not including. They largely just argued that being in RSes means we ought to include. That's creating a new rule, not grappling with the competing considerations.voorts (talk/contributions)19:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
FrodoMarsh sayssatisfies the "potential harm vs encyclopedic value" concerns indicating awareness of and engagement with the fact that there is a real tradeoff here. Subsequent extensive discussion by them and with them explicitly has others mentioning BLPCRIME, so it seems reasonable to suppose they will have (re)read it at that point if not earlier. Penguino35 saysdue to extensive discussions on the Talk Page regarding WP:BLPCRIME which altered the way I viewed the previous RFC on this page (where I previously voted no) which implies he most definitely seriously considered not including, to the extent that he previously felt that way but has now changed his mind. Nemov also engages directly, head-on, and not unreasonably with the strength of the guidance provided by BLPCRIME, i.e. seriously considered. (As I wrote above, this is not an exhaustive list, just responding to your request to "a single !vote that seriously considered" with the first 3 I saw that engaged on a level which to me absolutely meets that bar. One can disagree with their conclusion, but not deny that they engaged with the tradeoff meaningfully and seriously.Martinp (talk)19:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Given FrodoMarsh's other comments in that thread, I don't think they did really consider it other than paying lip service. Penguino's rationale makes little sense to me. I don't think Nemov has a good reading of BLPCRIME given the broader RfC (which they started) about amending BLPCRIME that other editors have mentioned here.voorts (talk/contributions)19:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid that to me, your response comes across as "I don't agree with their conclusion, so I can't imagine they considered it seriously". As Ed says below, "seriously consider" is rather vague. I think we need to assume good faith that articulate contributors to a discussion, who indicate awareness of a tradeoff, have seriously considered that tradeoff. And that a collective discussion which centres on that policy tradeoff, making repeated references to the policy tenets underpinning it, and which gives reasonable indications that people are reading and responding to each other, consititutes "serious consideration". I'm not familiar with the origin of the "seriously consider" wording, but it feels like it indicates precisely that at the time it was drafted, people were uncomfortable with blanket answer and wanted judgment to be used. And a reasonable discussion where points of view are clearly articulated and a (putative) consensus is reached is exacty how we as a community make judgment calls.
(I think I'll disengage now; I don't think we quite agree with each other, but we've both made our points for the benefit of others as much as is reasonable).Martinp (talk)22:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. Admittedly, I don't live in the US, so I'm blissfully largely ignorant of the political (and racial) overtones of this specific case. I don't edit in this area, didn't participate in the discussion, but have read it today. This was a debate on how to reconcile when two fundamental policy constructs of Wikipedia are at odds in this instance (report what is notable/in RS vs BLP/privacy/do-no-harm). While opinions were strong, the discussion was reasonable with serious consideration of the policy issues by the participants. The closer parsed the discussion as ultimately reaching consensus of "yes, put the name in". I think this is a plausible conclusion; I also feel "no consensus" would have been plausible as well, but see no reason to challenge the closer's judgement in that regard. The arguments for overturning it seem to centre on a conviction that BLP considerations were not given enough weight. But, as Frank Anchor writes above, our policy in BLPNAME and BLPCRIME ends up advisingcaution should be applied andseriously considering not including a name in these circumstances, not prohibiting it. That serious consideration was made here....and (plausibly) reached a conclusion to include it. I think some commentators there and here would *like* BLPNAME and BLPCRIME to be stricter than it is, which is a policy discussion worth having, but shouldn't translate into overturning a close of a (largely) policy-compliant but tradeoff-aware discussion.Martinp (talk)17:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Not only was the consensus not clear, but the bulk of the include arguments were "well it's in the sources". The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor wasoverwhelmingly rejected by the community, as evidenced by the failed proposal to addeditors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing toWP:BLPCRIME. It wasthoroughly rejected, so the rejected arguments based around sources had no basis in policy (WP:DETCON).Symphony Regalia (talk)00:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The main opposition in that RFC was not to the "extent and quality of reliable sourcing" part; some Oppose editors actually supported that part. What sunk it was mostly the "assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum" part. --Beland (talk)00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I only count 3 or 4 in support, but few Oppose editors cited the sourcing provision as a reason, certainly not enough to be "overwhelming". --Beland (talk)01:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse: BLPCRIME says editors should "seriously consider" omitting a name from the article. It does not tell uswhat to consider, which is a vagueness we might want to remedy so future discussions have guardrails (and admins can better weigh !votes). Participants in this RfC seriously consideredincluding whether to include the name despite the open-ended policy, and on that point I appreciatedChaste Krassley's andNemov's !votes in particular. With reasoning very similar toMartinp above, to me Beland made a reasonable determination of a narrow consensus.Ed[talk][OMT]19:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Participants in this RfC seriously considered including the name They're supposed to seriously considernot including the name. The first two sentences of BLPCRIME explain what the motivating considerations are, and the reference to the non-public figure section of the BLP policy clarifies it.voorts (talk/contributions)20:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for mistyping; what I meant to say was "considered whether to include the name". It doesn't change the plain meaning of what I wrote, but I edited it above. Thank you for starting a discussion over atWT:BLP#Let's put this to rest to clear up the vagueness in this policy and improve future similar RfCs.Ed[talk][OMT]22:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It's a RfC close appeal, so of course, the closer gets accused of supervoting. This almost always happens and it's not okay. It needs to stop. We need to make it a rule that you have to play the ball and not the man. Show what's wrong with the close, not what's wrong with the closer.In this case we're dealing with a simple matter of core content policy. From WP:ONUS: "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those who seek to include disputed content". I do not see a consensus to include it so I wouldoverturn.—S MarshallT/C07:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. I don't like the idea that we're trying to parse whether an editor "seriously considered" something by the phrasing they used in their comments. They offered a valid for including the name, widespread media coverage, which is a good enough reason. ~~Jessintime (talk)14:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. I think this close is reasonable.WP:BLPCRIME says that editors must seriously consider not naming people under such circumstances, but serious consideration evidently was given to that possibility via the RfC, and a significant though not overwhelming majority of editors felt that other considerations ought to prevail.Dionysodorus (talk)22:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. It was reasonable to up-weigh !votes that mentioned not just the use of the name in sources, but itswidespread use. It was reasonable to down-weigh !votes that simply cited BLPCRIME as though it were more restrictive than it is. The close seems a reasonable judgement of policy-weighted consensus. Closers shouldn't have to take so much heat for their efforts.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)16:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. The question for a close challenge is not "Is this exactly what I would have done?" (though in this case, at least for me, I would have closed it pretty much the same way), but "Is the closeunreasonable or an abuse of discretion?". The answer here is clearly "no"; the close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. It's clear to me that many who argued in the RfC to include did seriously consider not including the name, but given that it is already widely publicized and readily available, they decided that including it in the article would do nothing that hasn't already been done.SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse (I didn't participate in this discussion, but I did participate in a previous one). The close is an accurate summation of the discussion, and the consensus found is entirely compatible with policy: No aspect of BLP prohibits inclusion, BLPCRIME requires editors to "seriously consider not including" and there was serious consideration given by almost all of those advocating for inclusion and many of those advocating for exclusion. However more than one editor argued for exclusion on the basis of something the BLP policy does not say, and I cannot in good faith say that, based on their contributions to the RFC, all of those editors did give serious consideration to the matter.Thryduulf (talk)20:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse WP:BLPCRIME says to "seriously consider not including material"-- the "seriously consider" part is the RfC in this particular case. Beland provided a good and accurate summarization of that RfC.Some1 (talk)00:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse - This close was well within discretion. A majority of editors agreed that the name should be included and they were basing this off analysis of the reliable sources and their interpretations of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with. The minority was an argument based purely on a rigid policy interpretation of BLPCRIMEonly. As far as I can tell, there is no amount of sourcing or arguments that would make the opposition turn nor did they adequalty address the affirmation arguments regarding how the readibility and quality of the article was greatly diminished by excluding the name. OP's points are fair but this is not a court with strict interpretation (seethis andthat).R. G. Checkers talk00:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with.
The goal at that RfC was to create a rigid tier system, which is unrelated to this issue at hand and I'd probably have opposed it to. Also I'm not "dismissing it," I am pointing out the grammatical fact that this policy is vague. It is perfectly fair for this community-- and a majority of the Metfalf discussion--to interpret this policy within the framework of reflecting reliable sources and a host of other things I mentioned in my first comment. And it is perfectly fair for a neutral closer to accept that as legitimate consensus.R. G. Checkers talk01:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Overturn. Symphony Regalia has linked to my longer form explanation, and I wasn't originally planning to comment here as involved comments are less helpful than uninvolved ones. But I feel a need to respond to the idea that "having an RfC is what is meant by strongly consider". That's absolutely untrue. The guideline is not saying "if you get a bunch of people to think that it should be included in an RfC, then it should be included". It's saying that there should be a strong consideration of theencyclopedic value of the name of someone. An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were basedsolely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration".I am not saying that a closer cannot still find a consensus keeping that in mind. But the close needs to account for the fact that at least a significant portion of the "include" !votes were based on arguments that have been rejected in wider discussions. The closer says they "inferred" that people who !voted for "include" considered it as the guideline requires. That is not how it works - people are expected toshow they considered it through their !vote - whether by expanding on their reasoning themselves or by referencing another !vote that has done so that they agree with. The closer doubled down on their close being appropriate when this was specifically brought up by 3 users on their talkpage - and as they're unwilling to correct that problem their close should be vacated and someone else who is willing to take the time to properly and completely consider things, including discounting !votes that are contrary to wider consensus and explaining their reasoning in more detail, should be allowed to re-close. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!02:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez:Please provideevidence(RfC links, etc.)that the wide dissemination of name in reliable sources has been "soundly rejected by the community mulitiple times" as a factor in inclusion of a name in a BLPCRIME context. In my reading, BLPNAME--a different but related policy--suggests that a wide dissemnation wouldweaken the case for exclusion (read the whole second sentence of BLPNAME).R. G. Checkers talk03:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The purpose ofWP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.
If the BLPNAME-based argument is that the accused's name only appears in primary and not in secondary sources, that can be countered by finding a secondary source that uses the name. In fact, I found a book which not only mentions the name but includes itin the title of the book:https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_of_Karmelo_Anthony/XsFC0QEACAAJ?hl=en
Going by BLPNAME instead of BLPCRIME (which may be wrong because BLPCRIME is more specific in scope) seems to set a lower threshold for inclusion, and the facts of this article would to my reading easily meet that threshold.
That's arguments you were free to make by !voting in the discussion. Not as the closer as justification for your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!04:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I think Beland is responding to R. G. Checkers and pointing out that BLPNAME has a lower standard than BLPCRIME and that this article would meet the lower BLPNAME standard. None of that is relevant to the close and I don't think Beland is stating otherwise. I'll note, however, that I'm concerned that Beland is citing what purports to be a self-published book on Amazon that throws an error when you click on the link to Amazon.voorts (talk/contributions)04:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I still think that this sort of reply is heavily based on Beland's somewhat strongly held personal opinions - and I generally prefer closers not have such a strong opinion on things they close (as it reduces the risk of a supervote, whether intentional or not). But I appreciate that this isn't as inappropriate a place to speak those views as part of the discussion as I made it sound. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!04:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not say that it is not a factor. But there's a significant minority (if not majority) of !votes to include that weresolely based on that factor. Which has been rejected as a sole/primary reason - that's the whole reason we have BLPCRIME/BLPNAME/BLP in general in the first place. Is that we do not have to name someone just because their name is in reliable sources.Failing to discount the many !votes that were based solely on it being in reliable sources as contrary to policy makes this a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!04:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
So you admit to overstating the community consensus on this matter. How much weight to give to any factor -- in the case the factor isevery reliable source mentions and discusses the accused insignificant detail -- is up to the community, and in this case (just like many others) a majority of particants thought it weighed toward inclusion. Also if consensus is not a vote, which it isn't, why can't the solely source-based (which are very legitimate) votes be weighed alongside other reasons that were brought up by other inclusion supporters?Of which there were many.
Overturning must establish this close was grossly outside the realm of reason, and so far the overturn side has been upheld by largely unevidenced claims of some massive site-wide community consensus against using reliable sources as the sole factor that apparentlydoesn't exist. You can't decree ex nihilo that the community must consider more than one or two or however many factors. That is justyour interpretation of the policy. But in this discussion the majority viewed it otherwise. The only grounds you had to demonstrate otherwise was if it violated some larger community consensus, which you admitted to be unable to scatch up.R. G. Checkers talk04:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not overstate the consensus. You are reading things that I did not say. The community has clearly stated that being named in reliable sourcesis not sufficient and is not a major factor. This is why we have BLPNAME in the first place. This is why BLPCRIME talks about when to name people. This is what the RfC about whether sources using the name is acceptablecame to the consensus that sources not using the name should be preferred.That is why solely "it's used in sources" !votes cannot be used. Because they are contrary to longstanding policy/guideline and priorsite-wide consensuses. If you wish to change those consensuses, the proper way to do so is through another sitewide discussion or RfC. Not by acting like a local consensus can go against it just because people are tired of countering your view to point it out repeatedly to you. I did not admit I'm unable to do so - in fact, I referred you to the three policies that explicitly state it should not be the only or most significant factor. You refusing to accept that does not mean it doesn't exist, and ultimately,living persons is a contentious topic because of people like you who refuse to accept consensuses you disagree with and act like they don't exist.Bluntly, it does not matter what a majority of people here viewed it as. That's whyWP:CONLEVEL exists. A local consensus based on ignoring a site-wide consensus, as reflected in policies and guidelines, and withoutexplicitly stating based on good reasoning that the site wide consensus shouldn't apply in this instance, is not a valid local consensus in the first place - period. Your dislike of the wider consensus does not mean it doesn't still exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!05:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Isn't the site-wide consensus inWP:BLPCRIME compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases? If it meant to require exclusion in all cases, I would expect it to say "editors should not include material" rather than "editors must seriously consider not including material". --Beland (talk)05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It's compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases, with good reason. A significant minority, if not a majority, of "include" !votes in this discussion were based on flimsy (at best) reasons, and some based on reasons specifically against the sitewide consensus (ex: the reason "it's there in sources so we should name too"). A valid close would have taken into account any argument that provides such a "reason" and discounted it entirely. Yours did not do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!05:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME does not say "no matter how widespread coverage of the person's name is", so I would not reject "coverage of this event is so extensive that the person's name is widely known and thus they are a public figure now and there is no remaining harm to be done" as an argument incompatible with policy. --Beland (talk)05:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It isn't overstated. The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor was indeedoverwhelmingly rejected by the community. The purpose of that tier system proposal was so "suspect, but mentioned widely in sources" would bias toward inclusion was opposed to defaulting to exclusion as it currently does, as evidenced by the failed proposal to addeditors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing toWP:BLPCRIME. It wasthoroughly rejected.Symphony Regalia (talk)07:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I see at least two Opposed editors supporting that wording; most opposition was to "editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted". --Beland (talk)13:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
This is literally just a lie. Go read it yourself for anyone interested to see the bad faith straw grasping of the overturn side to uphold their policy decree ex nihilo. This is an unclosed RfC with many nuanced, diverging views,less participants than the Metcalf discussion, and some opposed participants pointed out that they explicitly supported reliable sources being in the analysis. At no point was the specific matter of reliable sources being the only/primary factor considered.R. G. Checkers talk14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
If one persons says "A" and another says "A because policy X" and a third person says "B", I think it would be a little too much of a "Simon says" game to exclude the first opinion from consideration, given that opinion 2 shows that A is a conclusion supported by policy.
Looking back at the discussion, supporters of inclusion were not merely arguing that the name appeared in some reliable sources. The most common logic was that "extensive national coverage" undermined the need to reduce harm, as any harm of disclosure had already been done by widespread distribution. As evidence, one editor gave a list of 8 national non-tabloid sources, and more were found in the article's citations. A secondary argument was that the accused has become more of a public figure, both due to the extensive coverage and due to events involving and actions of the accused and the family, including public fundraising. Not everyone connected all the dots, but they are all pointing to the same factual justification for their preferred outcome.
Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion. --Beland (talk)05:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
"Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion."
The only reason I thought of this argument is that the closure was challenged and complaints were made that I didn't analyze the strengths of the arguments deeply enough. I did predict that doing so would result in more accusations of supervoting, and so it has happened yet again. It seems there is no closure that would have been accepted as fair by everyone involved. --Beland (talk)05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It is correct that there are some RFC closes, which given the underlying dispute, will invariably end up being challanged here. Whether that particular RFC is one of them, I'm not sure.TarnishedPathtalk05:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. I assumed good faith at first - hence why I posted on your talk page encouraging you to explain further, and then once you did and it was insufficient, I encouraged you to self-revert it to avoid this. But you doubled down on your talk page and are doubling down here repeatedly. It gets more and more difficult to assume good faith when you continue ignoring now half a dozen editors - many of them more experienced than me even - saying that you're wrong here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!05:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you; I've spent way too much time carefully reading your arguments and responding. It's not unexpected that a crowd of people on the losing side of a debate would come to the appeal of the outcome and try to get a second bite at the apple. And it's not like people on the winning side haven't shown up and argued the outcome was correct. Most of the procedural objections have been poor; I've investigated the policy objections and that has actually increased my confidence in the outcome. The one procedural objection I think is worth a second opinion is whether headcount was a good way to decide whether the threshold for inclusion was reached, whether 4:3 is enough of a ratio, and whether discounting this would change the outcome. I hope someone who does not already have an opinion on BLPCRIME issues will show up and look at that and anything else they find askew. I fear no matter what they say, they will be accused of supervoting or ignoring policy, and people will just make the same arguments again that they made in the original discussion. Which will make it unpleasant for them and thus take longer to find a volunteer willing to do that. --Beland (talk)06:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
In the interest of fairness, scouring the discussion does turn up one editor making the opposite argument: that news organizations usedifferent standards for deciding whether to include names. And that'salso true - instantaneous news value is not the same as long-term encyclopedic value. A second editor echoed this point, and said not all news organizations chose to include the name.
If we're looking for reasons to dismiss !votes, many editors advocated exclusion on the grounds that adding the name of the accused added nothing to the article. I evaluate that is a very weak argument, based on the counterarguments given.
Many editors advocated exclusion based on the fact that the accused was a minor. If we are only looking to Wikipedia policy, that is not mentioned as a factor in WP:BLPCRIME, so could be dismissed entirely. I would not do so, though; I think it is one of the factors envisioned by "serious consideration", and it is an important one when considering the harm that could be done to a living person. Other editors point out that this person was charged as an adult, which I know means the charges go on their public record, and the proceedings are fully public. This will show up on a criminal background check if they ever apply for a job, and the massive number of media stories will show up if anyone ever does a web search on their name. So what would normally be a quite strong factor is somewhat weakened. What remaining harm are we trying to protect this person from? According to the article they have admitted to stabbing another person; that is another factor which undermines the need to wait until after conviction - normally the fact of performing bodily harm is still in dispute.
Another argument that just came to mind - when someone in the future is doing a web search on this person, for example as a potential employee or first date, they have an extremely strong interest in knowing the person they are looking up has admitted to stabbing someone. Arguably what harm Wikipedia would add (to answer my own question) is keeping this event prominent in web results long after the trial has ended and media reports get less prominent. But that is also the service it provides to readers who might be concerned about their personal safety. We will report, in fairness to the accused, whether the jury decided this was in self-defense, and readers can take that into account.
I'm bringing up new arguments here because I think it's worth exploring them to make sure that overturning this wouldn't result in the same outcome with the same or stronger level of support, or a no-consensus outcome resulting in article instability for not much real-world benefit. --Beland (talk)06:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Your final paragraph makes clear you don't understand it. The ends do not justify the means, if the means were wrong. Even if it results in the same outcome, the community of editorsand our readers deserve a close that is well thought out and articulated. And not one that is saying that just because the outcomemay be the same, a poor close is acceptable. This attempt to justify the close is probably the most clear you've been that it's a SUPERVOTE. You closed it because you felt it was the correct outcome, and you're justifying it based on your own opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!06:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, when this sort of thing happens with a criminal case, a US appeals court that finds a problem in a trial doesn't automatically declare a mistrial and order a new one. Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial, but if the appeals court finds the error or misbehavior was very unlikely to have changed the outcome, it may admonish lawyers but will dismiss the appeal and let the verdict stand. Often appeals are limited to verifying that the law was correctly applied to the facts established by the original trial, but sometimes new facts are also considered if they were unknown at the time - for example, major new physical evidence. Asking "will new legal analysis or new facts change the outcome of this conviction" is not evidence that the appeals court judges are biased and just trying to preserve their favored outcome. Nor would the district court judge saying "I learned more about this case during the appeals process and what I learned made me more confidence in the verdict" be evidence of bias. That could be a legitimate result in a specific case, but if the judgenever became less confident in their verdicts, that would be an indication of confirmation bias.
Overturn - Very much per voorts' comments on this. A lot of the arguments for inclusion were merely that RS stated who the accused is. This asWP:ONUS makes clear is not a reason by itself for inclusion. We still need to take policy considerations into account and it doesn't appear that Beland sufficiently discharged that duty in line withWP:DETCON when they closed the RFC.TarnishedPathtalk02:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Beland states above that inclusion v no inclusion was a "close call", indicating aWP:NOCON close in which we would generally default to exclusion in a BLP, but then goes on to state that to get around that "I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met". To me this runs contrary toWP:DETCON which states that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." If when weighing up the arguments on vaious sides, they found that the policy arguments were of similar weight, the analysis should have ceased and no consensus determined. Determining consensus is not merely aWP:HEADCOUNT.TarnishedPathtalk04:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean, if a discussion was whether policy X or policy Y was more important in a given case, and reasonable arguments could be made either way but 90% of editors favor policy X being given priority, wouldn't we go with the outcome determined by policy X? There wasn't a 90% margin in this discussion, but with this example I mean to say that headcount should not be ignored. --Beland (talk)04:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Overturn per voorts' comments; the overwhelming majority of comments arguing for inclusion presented no policy-based reason for inclusion. The entire point ofWP:BLPCRIME andWP:BLPNAME is that the simple mention of a name in news sources is not, in and of itself, sufficient for inclusion; arguments thatsolely point to the fact that such sources exist, and nothing else, are therefore not based in policy and must be disregarded. The interpretation Beland presents above (that BLPCRIME sets a lower standard than BLPNAME for inclusion of a name) is not one that was presented in the RFC and is therefore clear evidence that Beland's closure was aWP:SUPERVOTE. And, of course, as an interpretation it is also obviously absurd to suggest that BLPCRIME couldlower the standard of BLPNAME in a context that is plainly more BLP sensitive than normal. Toseriously consider something means to consider it in light of the broader policies, including BLPNAME. Beland's interpretation of it would mean that any time any dispute over BLPCRIME occurs, the people in the dispute could immediately point to that dispute itself asseriously considering not including it the name, even if (as in the discussion at hand) they then plainly ignore BLPCRIME and present no arguments beyond the bare fact that it passesWP:V. also note that Beland's response above immediately leaped to arguing the underlying facts (The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.), further underlining the SUPERVOTE nature of their close - if Beland feels so strongly about both their idiosyncratic interpretation of BLPCRIME and the specific facts of this case, they should have weighed in with a !vote, not imposed that opinion via a closure. --Aquillion (talk)04:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
This is what I mean about being accused of a supervote if I deeply consider the merits of arguments, and being accused of improperly not taking policy into account if I don't. --Beland (talk)04:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not argue that BLPCRIME sets a lower threshold for inclusion that BLPNAME; I argue the reverse, that BLPNAME sets a lower threshold. I would also agree that BLPCRIME's higher threshold should be what controls, because it's more specific in scope.
One objection to my closure was that I did not consider BLPNAME, but no one mentioned BLPNAME in the discussion. If BLPNAME set a higher threshold for inclusion, then it would be worth considering whether it is more strongly controlling and if applying it would have changed the outcome. But if we agree BLPNAME sets a lower threshold for inclusion and that the discussion relied on BLPCRIME, then the discovery of BLPNAME after closure is not a reason to re-open. --Beland (talk)04:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment That the name should be included because it is reported in relation to a single event, which has not been sought by the named individual, seems at odds with being a low profile individual.WP:Who is a low-profile individual saysA low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
To clarify if they do not seek to be reported on, but RS report on them and that reporting is all BLP1E, then they remain a low profile individual. So a close that says an individual should be named based on unsought BLP1E reporting doesn't seem right. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
There could well be other arguments for inclusion, it's just that I don't see how this one is a valid. To say they should be included just because there has been reporting is the same, per the essay, as saying they should be included because they are a low profile individual. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse as I think it is the correct representation, but the reasoning was shockingly sparse. I was kindof surprised. This issue needs to be resolved at BLPCRIME more definitively, as I have already seen several debates over this on assorted, but obviously contentious topics, just in the past few months.Metallurgist (talk)18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse perWP:SENSE. Name is covered 20+ times in references, the vast majority of which are RS. Since the name is covered in theWP:ARTICLE (as "an article" includes its constituent references), the quibble is only about whether it can be mentioned in the prose of the article--in other words, hair splitting. The cost/benefit equation is clearly in favor of inclusion because every single RS website covering the killing already mentions the name in question, often in the titles of their articles which is why it is in our references, so our inclusion does not change the exposure of the suspect's name. The arguments that I'm incorrect about the risk/benefit ratio are themselves incorrect, but assertions that this assessment somehow doesn't amount to "Serious consideration" are simply ABF and should be entirely discarded themselves bad faith.Jclemens (talk)23:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm specifically rebutting your above queryCan you point me to a single include !vote that seriously considered not including the content?. Just because you don't recognize serious consideration doesn't mean it wasn't. And if you thinkWP:SENSE is an IAR argument, rather than an approach to balance of harms, you've yet again missed the point.Jclemens (talk)07:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources. "it's in the machine generated ref list" isn't a valid argument; it's circular reasoning. Even further than that, you're referring to news references whichWP:BLPNAME already rules out.Symphony Regalia (talk)10:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse -WP:BLPCRIME has already been seriously considered across two RfCs. Many of the exclude !votes simply cited the policy repeatedly, as if it categorically prohibits including a name. That’s not the case, and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the policy actually says.Nemov (talk)02:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse – considering some of the chief bludgeoners have been banned at ArbCom over similar culture-war topics, this was quite unsurprising. Nothing has changed since I !voted to include Karmelo Anthony's name, and I stand by every word I wrote. Most "exclude" !votes just cite the policy without bothering to read what it actually says. Meanwhile the "include" !votes point out the fact that we follow sources. Opposers failed to rebut the inclusion arguments, while the exclusion arguments were easily rebutted by quoting what BLPNAME and BLPCRIME actually say.🐔ChicdatBawk to me!22:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Killing of Austin Metcalf)
Thank youTamzin for pointing out the word limits. Apologies for what I've done to violate it myself or encourage violating it by other people. I will not be respondingany further to this discussion in any way, shape, or form unless someone asks me a direct question about my views. In such case please ping me and I will still try to keep any such response to as short as possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!06:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on it (not) being default. I still agree with it and will abide by what I said above - no longer replying unless I’m specifically pinged with a specific question. Thanks for all you do to try and keep things on track :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!06:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the first time I've come across something likeFile:Michael Aidoo portrait.jpg. It looks like someone tried to create a Wikipedia article in the file namespace. I'm not sure how to tag this since the file that was also uploaded could be tagged for speedy deletion with{{nsdnld}} orWP:F4 or even possibly with{{db-f9}} perWP:F9. It looks like the uploader of the files is also trying to create an article on their user page atUser:Chairman Big Aidoo. Should the article content just be removed from the file's page, and the file tagged for speedy deletion per F4? --Marchjuly (talk)11:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at thisIvanvector. I didn't think of G11 at all. Anyway, another admin also saw the pages in question and deleted them as such. Apparently (another thing I didn't notice), they had been deleted before for similar reasons and were recreations. Given that the creator is now blocked as a "promotional only" account, this thread can probably be closed. --Marchjuly (talk)20:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user who I blocked and later revoked talk access has emailed me challenging my actions. I'm posting here for review.
Slacker13 has been at the centre of a large thread at ANI recently over their disruption of articles related to Zak Smith, who is some kind of popular gamer or something with a following of meatpuppets (seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 andWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer). The ANI led to Slacker13 being banned from the topic. They posted a clearly retaliatory Arbcom case request against many of the editors who supported that action, which is where I became aware of them, and I blocked them as NOTHERE on the basis of escalating harassment of opponents in a topic they'd already been banned from. I've been away on vacation for a couple weeks so wasn't watching, but a few days ago Slacker13 pinged me on their talk page in a post about continuing to monitor editors in the same topic and demanding sanctions. Since they were still only using their talk page to interfere in the topic, I revoked access.
Their email I received this morning indicates they've opened an appeal at UTRS (I haven't checked) but they've also pointed out a note on my user page about my association withSimonm223, one of the editors they named in their case request. Neither of us make any secret here that we know each other in real life; the note refers to an edit Simonm223 made on my laptop while my account was logged in one time he was visiting my apartment while apartment-hunting himself. It was also sixteen years ago, and the note has been on my user page since 2014, but don't worry, Slacker13 has taken a screenshot in case I delete the incriminating evidence along with nine years of my page's history to hide it. You see, Slacker13 believes that everyone who opposes them are part of a widespread conspiracy of role-playing enthusiasts out to publish misinformation about Zak Smith (I haven't played an RPG in 30 years, and still don't know who Zak Smith is). The email reads very much like more of the same "everyone is out to get me" conspiracy mindset.
Anyway, they have challenged my actions solely on the basis of this connection, not that their edits were not disruptive or not violations of their topic ban, nor that they intend to edit constructively in any other topic. I request a review of my actions by uninvolved administrators.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)13:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
At this point, I'm tempted to suggest we just blanketWP:CBAN Slacker13 and all associated sockpuppets and meatpuppets, with no unban request considered for at least six months. This has been a massive time sink, though reasonable people may think my suggestion is overkill. I also wonder if anyone has looked at the claimed bluesky thread that brought all these sockpuppet accounts to Wikipedia, while being mindful ofWP:OUTING. --Yamla (talk)13:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
The funny thing is that I've been trying to distance myself from the Zak Smith dispute and the main complaint I've had with the meat puppetry going on there is that it's taken a relatively routine RfC and made it into a three-ring circus. I'm just kind of tired of this dispute and would very much like to not have to think about Slacker13 again.Simonm223 (talk)13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Not overkill at all. In fact I wrote basically this exact proposal a week or so ago in one of the SPIs, but my edit would not save. Turns out being in the woods in Newfoundland does not lend itself well to editing Wikipedia.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)13:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
This may not be entirely necessary but I think it bears mentioning: the main impact of Ivanvector and myself knowing each other in the context of all this is that I found their argument (among those of others)against a cban in the AN/I thread persuasive and actually changed my !vote, striking a previous support for a cban, and noting that I hoped they could return to regular editing on other articles with a tban. It's unfortunate that Slacker13 seems to have constructed this idea in their head of some sort of monolithic opposition to their position in light of this.Simonm223 (talk)14:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I also think any reasonable admin would also have indef'd for continuing to violate the TBAN. This was a straightforward case. Slacker13, if you're reading this, please stay away from en-wiki for at least six months if you want to take the SO. During that time, reflect on what went wrong and work on writing an unblock request that accounts for that, doesn't blame other editors, and shows that you will edit productively going forward.voorts (talk/contributions)13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse, belief in conspiracies stems from a need for understanding in uncertain times, as well as as a desire to belong to a superior group.Lectonar (talk)13:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
86 them - I'd also suggest requiring appeals-to-ArbCom-only, but I don't think that's feasible. The only reason I'd want that in any event is to throttle spurious/NOTTHEM unblock requests and keep from wasting UTRS' time on a pointless axe-grinding contest. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques18:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Do you mean this to apply only to Slacker13 or to all sockpuppets/meatpuppets? I'm pretty sure the former, just making sure it's clear. --Yamla (talk)18:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no private information at play, and this isn't an arbitration-related sanction (ie. placed by the Committee or byAE etc.), so appeals to ArbCom are not only not necessary, but also would be declined as out of our scope — perthe banning policy, bans applied by the community can only be appealed to the Arbitration Committeeif there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. We have already declined to hear an appeal from Slacker13 that was instigated under this clause once,last month.Daniel (talk)18:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. Slacker13's only activity on the project in the last month has been to right perceived great wrongs in this topic(wow, has it really only been one month?). Both the block and subsequent TPA revocation are appropriate and necessary to prevent the continuation of what any reasonable editor would consider to be ongoing violations of their topic ban. --tony19:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
AgreeNewslinger, and further to this, Slacker13's attempted argument that a whole raft of individuals are "involved" (a point they have been pushing since early last month) is errenous in the extreme.Daniel (talk)22:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Newslinger, you clearly put a ton of time and care into the investigation into possible sockpuppets of Slacker13 and it is impressive but I found the report just about incomprehensible. It seemed that, at most, there was a set of common interests among editors. Did any Checkusers look into this case and use their tools? I can see that not all editors who had edited the Zak Smith article were found "guilty" of being meatpuppets but wouldn't you find some of these coincidences among people who share a common affection for any artist? I'm not going to go over the case for each editor named because, like I said, I found the results confusing, I just wanted to know more about the process that was used. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!00:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I spent the time digesting the results in detail when they were first posted, as they overlapped with existing arbitrator business. By contrast, I found the report totally comprehensible and a very efficient way of presenting the information, to which I commended Newslinger on their talk page at the time.Daniel (talk)01:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I checked on what was happening at the talk page almost every day and I assure you that it is not because theyshare a common affection for [that] artist. This is clearly a sophisticated and well-orchestrated campaign to sway consensus and disrupt our processes. And it worked, as the page was protected with the sexual harassment info removed. I know it is important to assume good faith but this has gone for too long and the blocks were warranted.
HiLiz, I understand that the26 August Slacker13 SPI case can be hard to follow because it involves many users and a large amount of data. After asking editors for input and examining the available evidence, I presented the findings in two subsections: theAnalysis section concluded that the activity onTalk:Zak Smith on 20 August was the result of an off-wiki coordination campaign that specifically directed users to the talk page, and theAccount review section individually reviewed the behavioral history of each listed editor to determine whether they should be blocked or warned for apparentmeatpuppetry.Here is a simplified timeline of the events:
11 August: The court judgment forSmith v. Nagy was published onCanLII.
18 August: Slacker13 obtained theURL for the court document on CanLII on this date, according to the timestamp in the URL. Slacker13 also regained theirIP block exemption permission on this date, after requesting it by email.
19 August: Slacker13 returned to editing, having made no edits since 12 April. Per thepageview statistics,Talk:Zak Smith received 7 pageviews on this date, while theZak Smith article received 43.
20 August: Involved editors claim that, on this date, Zak Smith (who is said to have about 4,000 Instagram followers) posted anInstagram story that vaguely referencedSmith v. Nagy without mentioning Wikipedia. Slacker13 deleted the "Sexual abuse allegations" section of theZak Smith article, the first non-bot edit to the article in 14 months, which marked the beginning of the current content dispute. At 20:49,Slacker13 posted a comment onTalk:Zak Smith supporting the removal of the disputed content; the comment contained the URL of the court document that Slacker13 obtained on 18 August, and was the first non-bot edit to the talk page in about 2.5 years. Eight users that were notextended confirmed posted messages in support of Slacker13 within two hours; all of these users had been inactive for 5–14 months and had never edited in the Zak Smith topic area before.Talk:Zak Smith received 595 pageviews on this date (about 15% of Smith's follower count), exceeding the 398 pageviews on theZak Smith article.
21 August: Three more users that were not extended confirmed posted comments in support of Slacker13 onTalk:Zak Smith. At 16:56, the content dispute was reported to theWP:BLPN noticeboard.
Based on this information, I concluded that there is no plausible explanation for the activity onTalk:Zak Smith on 20 August that does not involve an off-wiki coordination campaign that directed the involved users straight to the talk page, because Smith's vague Instagram story by itself could not have plausibly generated such activity on this talk page within such a short timeframe. As Slacker13 had already been indefinitely blocked, I applied thepolicy on meatpuppetry to block the users who were likely to have been participating in this campaign, based on their individual behavior patterns, and sent them messages stating that an unblock request would be more likely to succeed if they accept a topic ban from Zak Smith as anunblock condition.This investigation was based on behavioral evidence only. Two checkuser scans showed the accounts in the 26 August case to be technically unrelated, which suggests that they were operated by different individuals, but the behavioral findings support the conclusion that these different individuals engaged in off-wiki coordination to influence the outcome of the content dispute onTalk:Zak Smith, which is still prohibited by the policy on meatpuppetry.My comment here is a broad overview of the 26 August case, hopefully presented in a way that is more understandable. There are many additional details inthe case itself. If you or anyone else has a more specific question about any aspect of the case, I am also happy to answer it. — Newslingertalk13:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment As a rule, I don't like talk page access being removed except for cases of persistent vandalism and harassment. I think that Slacker13 could be a valid editor if they could ever get over their single-mindedness on Zak Smith but I don't foresee that happening any time in the near future and I recognize that the community is out of patience with their arguments of there being a plot to damage Smith's article and reputation from the online RPG community. But I say this now so that when enough time has passed, Slacker13 should get the access to their talk page back and be able to submit a regular unblock request. I'm not sure that six months will be long enough as Slacker13 does see this still as a "righting great wrongs", life vs. death scenario and most people do not let go of that attitude very easily or quickly.LizRead!Talk!00:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse I feel Slacker's obsession with seeing things which clearly aren't there was already amply demonstrated when they accused someone of having a connection to the RPG community because their name appeared in one of those books taken from Wikipedia content which attempted CC or GFDL compliance by putting all the names of contributors somewhere. In other words they probably edited some Wikipedia article which was RPG related at some stage. It's a fairly ridiculous connection to make since as anyone experienced with the world knows, theMeToo movement has meant significant focus on such accusations by people totally unrelated to the community the person is from. From a Wikipedia PoV, sometimes perhaps even crossing a bit too far into the activist threshold when it comes to BLPs as we experience at BLPN. There is absolutely no reason to assume everyone has some connection to the RPG community just from some basic understanding of the modern world without needing to know anything about Wikipedia.Nil Einne (talk)10:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse per everyone else has already said what needs to be stated. It's disappointing that Slacker13 still doesn't understand what was wrong with their behavior, and is still wasting our time about this. FYI, theRfC on the talk page has run its course, and is ready to be closed, if someone wants to tackle that.Isaidnoway(talk)00:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brigading at Advance UK its Talk page
Somebody is clearly sending meatpuppets toAdvance UK andTalk:Advance UK. I don't think that many of them have experience with Wikipedia, or even know what a meatpuppet is, so I don't want to be too hard on them individually. Some of them have declared their COIs, although not in the standard way, so I don't want to accuse them of being deceptive. Nonetheless it is becoming disruptive and it has been going on for a while without blowing over. Clearly somebody is organising this and I was wondering if there was anything we can do to curtail it?DanielRigal (talk)21:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I understand there is a forum for registered members on their website. For what I would hope are obvious reasons, I'm not associating or contributing to such websites.Knitsey (talk)22:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done You've provided no reason to believe it's necessary and there have only been six edits to that article in the past week.WP:AIV is probably a better place if you spot ongoing vandalism. --Yamla (talk)21:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appeal of partial block on IP address 2409:4091:903c:3c0d:e136:b9a4:cccb:1c99
"Hello,
I am writing to appeal the partial block on my IP address, which is2409:4091:903c:3c0d:e136:b9a4:cccb:1c99. I understand that the block was put in place due to 'persistent addition of unsourced content' from my IP range.
I was not the user who was adding the unsourced information. I am a different user who appears to be affected by this broad block on the IP range. I would like to make good-faith edits to Wikipedia, and I am not associated with the previous disruptive behavior.
I am aware of Wikipedia's policy on citing reliable sources and I intend to follow it for all my contributions. Could my IP please be unblocked so that I can make constructive edits?
The fact that you were able to post a message here means that you are not totally blocked. What page do you want to edit? What did you want to do there? Have you tried adding a comment to the article talk page?Johnuniq (talk)08:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
This appears to be a partial block from, by my count, five articles. There are over 7 million other articles that this IP range can still edit that are not affected by this block.88.97.192.42 (talk)09:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Original poster, that range is only blocked from five articles, out of millions. What edits do you want to make to those articles?331dot (talk)09:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
The range is blocked from14 pages. That still leaves 7 million, but I suspect a key factor in this thread is that account creation has also been blocked. PingOshwah whoadded the ACB block, andHJ Mitchell whoextended it for a year. I think we probably need some better guidelines for modifying partial blocks. --zzuuzz(talk)09:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Allowing account creation is probably the easiest fix but there's no denying there's a lot of junk coming from there. The extent of my involvement isthis thread where it appeared the target of this block was using an IPv4 I'd previously blocked.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?10:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree; allowing account creation would be the easiest way to resolve this. My involvement with this IP range is that multiple IP addresses from within it were adding disruption to theJimmy Sheirgill article, and this is the CIDR that I determined that should be blocked in order to stop the issue. I didn't have a problem with applying this block to such a huge range, since I only partially blocked it from editing that one article. I didn't take account creation being blocked into account when I applied it. For the record, I have no issues with the block being modified in order to allow for account creation to be performed.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the block on account creation. Note that I have seen cases in the past where rangeblocks with account creation blocked on IPv6 ranges have somehow managed to prevent account creation from addressesoutside the block, so it may overall be a good idea to disable blocking account creation on pblocks in general. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page has been vandalised multiple times due to the divisive nature of being an Indonesian politician at this time (or any time). Please consider locking or protecting it to avoid vandalisms. You can see that the page has been vandalised numerous times for a short period of time. Thank you.Mtlh01p (talk)06:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please block my account until the end of 27 September. I have personal matters to attend to and am spending too much time here editing. It is urgent.Marina redaktor (talk)16:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I would like to request consensus for an exemption to the criteria for temporary account IP viewer. The exception is to clause 2: 6 months of editing experience. The current requirement is 6 months of editing, but I have only been editing for 4 months and a week. I currently have over 2700 edits, local rollback permissions, and my account is mainly focused on Anti-Vandalism work, so having this permission will greatly aid my anti-vandalism work when temporary accounts are introduced. I have read many pages concerning temporary accounts, TAIV, and IP viewing in general on different projects.
Just to be clear here procedurally, am I correct in understanding that you're seeking a local consensus so that you can then request access from a steward through their extraordinary authority underWP:TAIVGRANT? If so, that sounds reasonable procedurally (no comment on substantively), similar to how we do other local matters that need to ultimately be actioned by a steward, but just want to be clear. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
TheWMF policy only allows stewards to grant an exemption where an editor is requesting the userright "for a purpose that cannot be reasonably addressedby users who already have this access". Fighting vandalism using TAIVcan "be reasonably addressed" by – as of now – 969 editors on en-wiki.voorts (talk/contributions)03:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that reading. I could see supporting an exception for, say, a sister-wiki admin with specialized knowledge in dealing with a specific LTA, or someone who needs access to develop a user script; but routine anti-vandalism doesn't seem to meet the threshold you quote. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. As I read the policy, exceptions to the WMF requirements cannot be granted on WMF projects that have a sufficient number of admins, functs, and other editors who can use the tool for any valid purpose.voorts (talk/contributions)03:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree per the two hypotheticals I gave above, both involving a purpose that the corps of enwiki admins+TAIVs wouldn't necessarily be competent at addressing. But it works out the same either way in pro-anti-air's case. And ultimately will be up to the stewards to decide, if someone does argue they have some atypical reason for needing access in the future. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Headbomb, rollback would revertall of the bot's consecutive edits to each page, going back to whenever the last edit by another user was. I don't think there's an automated way to undo only the latest edit.Extraordinary Writ (talk)01:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
There's an art to it, all about getting the right sequence of hand movements, almost like playing the piano. I learned that a long time ago as a Wikidata admin before there were good mass-deletion scripts there. What I was doing here is load 30 tabs, then on each: click Twinkle "restore", wait for popup,↵ Enter,ctrl+Tab ↹, repeat. So that goes right index, right pinkie, rest, left thumb and middle finger—get lost in the4 4 time rhythm.;) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)02:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Well aware it's piano-like. I often trigger Citation bot that way (I've got it shortcutted to CTRL+A), but some articles need a bit of hammering first, so it's a game of search (CTRL+F) and find (CTRL+G) and replace (CTRL+V) follow by saving (CTRL+S), bot trigger (CTRL+A), and close window (CTRL+W), repeat for many many articles etc.. Just unfamiliar with which tools are needed for this specific piano piece.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}03:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where to report a user ignoring a contentious topic restriction?
A user (@OneAgentBoi) who have I have previously warned aboutWikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia and the requierment to have ECP status, is continuing to edit in this topic area and has even blanked their talk page to resume editing:[33].
Is there is specific area where I can report this or am I able to do so here?
Blanking one's own user talk page is allowed (it is an indication that it has been read), and ECP status only applies to two subtopics. Which has OneAgentBoi been editing?Phil Bridger (talk)19:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
This edit added "Punjabi-origin" to "Sayyid dynasty", which seems to me to place it squarely undersocial groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure andlogging the renewalnoting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator.Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g.,WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g.,WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.
All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g.,WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.
In the last few days I keep seeing user pages being created that purport to be for early education. They vary in the wording and appear unrelated to any specific Wikimedia initiative (here's an example andhere's another). The latter of the two user pages had some fairly blatant promotional text that was deleted before being replaced with the "educational platform" version. Has anyone else come across these? --Ponyobons mots20:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
We've seen stuff like this before, usually from classrooms that have not been involved in a registered wiki-education program of any sort. This has a similar feel to it. They know enough not to put this in mainspace, but not enough to know this is not the kind of editing that Wikipedia is looking for. I'd suggest a conversation on the talk page of these users, to ferret out why they have created the pages and why they all seem to be focused on education. I don't think these are bad faith or promotional content; they're not promoting anything.Risker (talk)21:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm personally one of those users, we are actually doing some educational tasks that involve creating a Wiki platform and add some educational stuff to it that we are going to be marked for. We don't mean no harm. Please bear with usJesco S Ipumbu (talk)22:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Request for Review: Fabricated Article "Brahuistan" Lacks Historical and Academic Basis
I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of administrators a serious concern regarding the articleBrahuistan. The article appears to promote a politically motivated and historically inaccurate concept that lacks verifiable sources, academic legitimacy, and cultural recognition.
There is no credible historical, ethnographic, or political record that supports the existence of a region or national identity called "Brahuistan." The Brahui-speaking population of Balochistan has always been an integral part of the broader Baloch identity. The Khanate of Kalat, often referred to as the "Brahui Confederacy" due to the Brahui language of its ruling Ahmedzai dynasty, never used the term "Brahuistan." The region was historically divided into two administrative zones: Jhalawan and Sarawan. No sub-region or autonomous entity named "Brahuistan" has ever existed.
Even British colonial ethnographers rejected the term. As cited in Fred Scholz’s *Nomadism and Colonialism: A Hundred Years of Baluchistan, 1872–1972* (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 21), the British deliberately chose to name the region "Baluchistan" and not "Brahuiistan," despite the presence of Brahui-speaking tribes. Scholz writes: > “When the British came to the southern region of the Brahui Confederacy, they called the newly conquered land not Brahuiistan, but 'Baluchistan.'”
Furthermore, the Khans of Kalat consistently identified themselves as Baloch. In official portraits and historical records, the word "Baloch" appears in their titles. While their native language was Brahui, they never claimed a separate Brahui national identity. The concept of "Brahuistan" is not supported by any historical map, administrative division, or scholarly source.
Prominent nationalist figures such as Dr. Mehrang Baloch—born in Kalat, from the Langov tribe, and a native Brahui speaker—have never advocated for a separate Brahui region or identity. In fact, the modern Baloch nationalist movement includes Brahui speakers at its core. The unity of Baloch identity transcends linguistic differences and is rooted in shared history, struggle, and cultural consciousness.
Balochistan is historically and culturally defined by its regions: Makran, Kalat (Jhalawan and Sarawan), Lasbela, Rakhshan, Kharan, Koh-e-Suleiman, Quetta, and others. No region named "Brahuistan" exists in any official, academic, or local record.
Given the lack of reliable sources, the absence of historical precedent, and the potential for this article to promote divisive and fabricated narratives, I respectfully request that administrators review the article and consider its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability.
Moshtank, on reading your report I was going to tell you that deletion is handled atAFD, not here, but I see you've already tried that. You have two possibilities now:
If you think that there was an error in the way the AfD discussion was handled (such as consensus being misread) you can start adeletion review discussion.
You can wait a few more months and start another AfD.
As someone uninvolved in this whole area, I do have my concerns about the quality of the discussion at the AFD. Keep arguments referred to notability of the Brahui people and language (not disputed by the nominator), but did not address the nominator's argument that "Brahuistan" is not an accepted term or concept. Most of the sourcing provided is offline only and so hard to cursorily verify; the sources available online discuss Brahui people and language but not Brahuistan per se. I've tried to do a (admittedly very cursory) search, but apart from Wikipedia itself, the only mention of "Brahuistan" I can find is at[34], which does not seem like an impartial source. So, while I may be off the mark, I fear we may be elevating a controversial nationalistic aspiration (possibly with a few passing historical mentions) without having actually engaged with whether this is warranted. I'm not quite sure of the optimal process in such a situation (for instance, is a DRV warranted?), but I'm not convinced the AFD engaged with the right issues. I may be wrong.Martinp (talk)21:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@Martinp, my advice would be to take this to the talk page for further discussion and see if you can gain a consensus for whether the content of the article is reliable and verifiable or not in an environment where editors feel less pressure than an AfD. A clear, damning AfD nomination goes a long way; this didn't have one. --asilvering (talk)21:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
This thread has clearly been AI generated - you can tell from the style of writing, the em dashes and the attempts at using markdown for formatting (e.g. * for emphasis, > for quotes).86.23.87.130 (talk)21:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Based on the wording of the comments at the AFD, it seems both Moshtank and other participants there are perhaps not native English speakers. So I don't fault them for trying to use AI to make themselves more understandable - especially since no-one really seemed to engage with the point Moshtank was trying to make at the AFD. I dropped a note on Liz' (closing admin's) page myself to avoid needless bureaucracy. I may follow up with more discussion elsewhere (e.g. talk page as suggested above) but first want to give a chance for already involved parties to comment.Martinp (talk)10:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Following up to note that our policy on LLM-generated and -assisted discussion contributions dates back to the consensus determined atWikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions. Moshtank's (likely) use of AI to help craft his message here is explicitly permitted by that consensus: The reasoning is (presumably) Moshtank's own, which they articulated without the use of LLMs at the AFD #1 and their points were ignored. They may have used an LLM here, but it seems directly covered by the caveat at the close that the LLM prohibitiondoes not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments.Martinp (talk)22:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
My Account Has Been Partially Blocked
IT WAS BLOCKED FOR A REASON
As the blocking admin said in their block notice, you must acknowledge the concerns that led to your block, and move to correct them, to be unblocked, and you must request an unblock under those conditions on your talk page. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I Desperately Want To Edit Wikipedia Again Because My Account Has Been Partially Blocked. I Also Want To Edit More Articles In The Near Future.Albury1993 (talk)05:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you'd be well-advised to consider withdrawing this request and reading the information that was left for you on your Talk page at the time you were blocked. Most obviously, your note here doesn't say anything addressing the reasons why you were blocked.DonIago (talk)06:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Donlago. If you just keep asking to be unblocked because you want to edit or it was unfair without addressing the reasons for your block the result it just going to be a full block without talk page access to stop you wasting everyone's time.Nil Einne (talk)06:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Images on the Main Page
Recently I have seen more than one admin change images on the Main Page without checking that the image is protected on Commons. This is bad forWP:BEANS reasons if KrinkleBot, the protection bot on Commons, is running (the image might be unprotected for up to 10 minutes), and very bad if the bot is not running (which happens occasionally). Can we get everyone (especially those workingWP:ERRORS) to use the right steps to add an image to the Main Page:
The filter is a workaround for missing protection types in MediaWiki. I am aware that there are some ways to bypass the filter. The filter is not intended to prevent intentional malicious actions. The primary reason for the filter were users not reading the guidelines and not intentional damage. If it should strictly ensured that a file is not overwritten by not trustworthy users page protection is the only reliable way.GPSLeo (talk)17:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but we do not want to have a recurring open attack surface allowing the over 8,000 accounts on Commons with the relevant permissions to put inappropriate images on our Main Page. I have edited a few of the Main Page's relevant edit notices. I am sure that my edits can be improved upon. The edit notices are currently very different in tone and format and I do not know which of the formats works best. —Kusma (talk)08:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps an admin could take a look atUser talk:Sawbrimedline#Unblock. It's not formatted properly so perhaps that's why nobody has gotten to it yet. I'm not sure this user really understands why they were blocked, but English might not be their first language. Some of the things they've posted likethis and on their user talk page, if taken at face value, are unlikely to convince any admin to unblock them. I've decided not to notify the user of this discussion because they won't be able to respond here, and this could bea case of an older person just screwing around ormaybe worse. So, I figure it would be better for an admin to look at it first before notifying the user myself. --Marchjuly (talk)23:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
TLDR:Overturn, the outcome of the 2023 RFC is restored - postnominals are not allowed in the lead sentence. A future RFC may of course change this if consensus is demonstrated.
Summary and rationale:
The main argument in favor of overturning was that a "no consensus" outcome should result in the immediate status quo, not some previous status quo, being restored. This plausible argument was supported 2:1 by uninvolved parties, who I weight more heavily than involved, and this ratio determined the outcome. RFC closures can be reviewed, but some participants objected that the normal procedure for reviewing the previous RFC closure (contacting the original closer) was not followed. (This was not widely discussed.)
The main argument in favor of endorsing is that the outcome here was really "consensus to change but not yet agreed on what to" a.k.a. "bartender's close". Among the participants who considered the merits of a bartender close explicitly, some supported it and some opposed it, but there was a lot of hemming and hawing so it seems it was a difficult decision. Most participants did not mention the bartender argument explicitly, and I'm not sure if that's because they thought it didn't make sense, or they were distracted by the status quo weirdness. (But it's not my place to second-guess their judgment, so I didn't.)
A minor argument for sustaining was that "no consensus" for a policy or guideline should imply its removal, in order to reflect that it is no longer being followed in practice (and this is different than the "no consensus" for articles which means the status quo is kept). This was disputed. Another minor argument for sustaining was that the phrasing of the RFC means that it was a do-over of the previous RFC, not a modification of it.
To answer question 2 from S Marshall, there appears to be a lot of objection to and little if any support for the idea that this RFC close should have been based on the premise that a previous RFC was incorrectly closed. I would not read that as a general prohibition against going back and reading previous discussions, but taking into account much beyond policy and the contents of an RFC can be risky. The community acceptance of that may depend on how much they agree with that conclusion or with the consequences of doing so in a specific case.
To answer question 1 from S Marshall, hardly any participants engaged with the general question of whether a slight majority counts as consensus or if a large margin is needed (if I'm understanding your question correctly).
Personal opinions of the closer:
On question 1...you probably know better than I that different closers have different ideas about the threshold for consensus, absent a clear policy directive. I tend to grant narrow majorities a win if it seems making a decision is more important than which option is chosen, so editors aren't stuck flailing and unproductive. Other closers have a higher bar, and that can be a better approach in situations where there's a longstanding rule at stake, a major risk is being taken, the status quo seems safe, or it would be useful to workshop a complicated proposal and try again. Acceptance depends on how agreeable the participants are and how they consider these factors in a given circumstance. The answer is probably more complicated for bartender outcomes. In this case reasonable people came down on both sides of the question, so it's hard to say either answer is wrong.
Having done a few controversial closes recently, I do agree that participants on the losing side will often make spurious complaints about bias, supervoting, and tallying, or just try to re-litigate the RFC. While I support the right to petition for redress of grievances (and sometimes errors happen), maybe it would help raise the quality of appeals if there was a mandatory 24-hour cooling off period before pestering the closer or demanding a review? Some good advice I got from an elected city official is that often people who disagree with a decision just need to feel heard, and listening to their complaints like a therapist rather than as the decision-maker and acknowledging their disappointment can be satisfying enough for people to quietly tolerate an outcome they disagree with. I can't say I have the emotional bandwidth to do that every day, but fortunately no one can hear me swearing at my computer.
Thank you to S Marshall and everyone who closes discussions; you are performing a vital Wikipedia ecosystem function that vastly improves the quality of our content and makes working together possible. I hope you don't have to put up with too much drama and I impatiently await your declarations. Also thank you to everyone who wrote thoughtful comments for this review. --Beland (talk)08:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Reasoning: In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modifyMOS:POSTNOM so thatpost-nominal letters would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.
The new RfC was closed byS Marshall as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.
Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline'sstatus quo wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.
S Marshall pointed toWP:BARTENDER as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, whichHouseBlaster hasseparately questioned, as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.
Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.
Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).
At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.
We need to decide whether the communityreally thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—S MarshallT/C22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
[Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.
Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything inUser:S Marshall/RfC close log about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.
Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. --Alanscottwalker (talk)22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk)23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[36], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis.Alanscottwalker (talk)23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even saybold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree onsomething to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it.—Compassionate727(T·C)23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citingMOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark whenWP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion.TarnishedPathtalk23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means thestatus quo ante bellum is maintained. It doesnot mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need anew consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence ofWP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand.ProcrastinatingReader (talk)01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance,overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~Jessintime (talk)14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Reluctantlyoverturn. I do agree with S Marshall on atheoretical level regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes.CNC (talk)11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
OverturnWP:BARTENDER closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based onWP:PAGs arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain thestatus quo ante bellum.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requiresactive consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that theydon't. For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading toWP:QUO; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --Aquillion (talk)13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. This reminds me ofWP:NOCON for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus.CNC (talk)13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removingMOS:POSTNOM entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
That's the exact opposite of what it does. Itdeletes a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—S MarshallT/C21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote).HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it.Simonm223 (talk)13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there arenever any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptableWP:BARTENDER close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. --Patar knight -chat/contributions21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review,The ed17. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it byWP:SUPERVOTEing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutelycan have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether youshould depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—S MarshallT/C14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn. The point of an RfC is to come to agreement that enables us to write an encyclopedia. (In fact, the whole point of everything we do outside article space is to enable us to write an encyclopedia.) Sometimes RfCs can't reach that agreement... but they shouldn't make things worse. This took a rule that we could all follow, whether or not we agreed with it, threw it away, and didn't replace it with anything. That strictly made the situation worse. There needs to bestrong agreement that the current rule is just completely unbearable before we replace it with chaos. There wasn't that here. There was no consensus - fine, in that case the status quo stays. Not: no consensus, therefore the status quo gets thrown away.--GRuban (talk)13:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I think that's completely mistaken. When you delete a rule that doesn't have consensus, the outcome isn't "chaos". It's the regular Wikipedian way of working. Discuss. Use the talk page. Check what the sources say. Reason it out. Reach consensus on a case-by-case basis. This is not making the situation worse. It is in fact an improvement over an overreaching rule that, quite honestly, never had consensus in the first place.—S MarshallT/C21:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@S Marshall: I wasn't aware you thought POSTNOM was an "overreaching rule". That's an opinion that would have been usefully contributed to the RfC. When it comes from a RfC closer, it does bring an appearance of supervoting.
We've already disagreed below on your apparent belief that one RfC's closer can unilaterally overturn a second RfC's closure without an affirmative consensus, so I won't rehash that further.Ed[talk][OMT]22:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I formed the view that the rule was overreach, and never really had consensus in the first place, while analyzing the debate to close it. It was not a preconception. I would not have !voted in that discussion. I do believe that an RFC can overturn a previous RFC and I don't think that's controversial. Just as a "keep" at AFD doesn't immunize the article from deletion at another AFD two years later, an RFC can overturn a previous one. I'm very confident indeed that this was the right close, Ed.—S MarshallT/C23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, a RfC can overturn a previous RfC. I haven't said otherwise. However, the RfC needs to show consensus to overturn it, and per your own close there was no consensus for that option.Ed[talk][OMT]02:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Right. If every time we discussed an existing rule without getting consensus meant we had to get rid of the rule, we would very quickly lose most or even all of our rules. I'm surprised anyone who has been here longer than a few months thinks otherwise. It's like herding cats around here: Wikipedia editors prize their individuality, I strongly suspect a number of them will disagree with anyone on principle just to prove it. Getting consensus for anything is hard, getting enough consensus to make a rule is very hard, but getting "no consensus" is easy. --GRuban (talk)18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Participants (POSTNOM)
I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford'scomment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based ondue weight,original research, andclutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all.Dan Leonard (talk •contribs)22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised thatsome people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.)SnowFire (talk)00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement.Logoshimpo (talk)01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent.voorts (talk/contributions)21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words).Ed[talk][OMT] 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
"Repeatedly challenged" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years.Ed[talk][OMT]02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—S MarshallT/C07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that itwouldn't have survived close review. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus thatthey formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly thatthe status quo ... isn't working for us and thatrestoring the status quo isn't the best idea, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable ofsummarizing rather thandeciding, perform the close.Generalrelative (talk)14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer ofthis discussion would absolutely take account of.—S MarshallT/C15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closureis done at AN so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC.Ed[talk][OMT]16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think Ididn't follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—S MarshallT/C17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem.Ed[talk][OMT]18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citingMOS:POSTNOM (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. --Necrothesp (talk)15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking todelet[e] information in the name of dogma. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma.voorts (talk/contributions)01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize theuse–mention distinction aspect of this. While it might be usefulsometimes to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received,using that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "LEAD SENTENCE" and infoboxes.Dan Leonard (talk •contribs)02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
To side fork your questioning that you don't thinkanyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor)here and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfChere (search for the bit referencing "gnomes"). ~~Gecko G (talk)20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys aboutanything we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. --Necrothesp (talk)15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified.PamD17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just becauseI personally was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures.Gecko G (talk)11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American).Regardless, I feel thatS Marshall was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said,I understand opposers' concerns with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with itsclosure). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.MWFwiki (talk)20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment.MWFwiki (talk)21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me.Ed[talk][OMT]04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initialstatus quo seems to be the right call. -SchroCat (talk)06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. AlsoWP:BARTENDER (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.Some1 (talk)14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC.voorts (talk/contributions)15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
How can you argue thatThis 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC (...Reversal of the Exclusion), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).
Your own post in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfCyou yourself suggested a new RfC about it.
(I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed)Gecko G (talk)15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Noting that this is not about theCommonwealth versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smallerCommonwealth realm, though far from universal even therein, versus common practiceeverywhere else. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark.Vanamonde93 (talk)20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. –notwally (talk)22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) — BarrelProof (talk)20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote.Celia Homeford (talk)08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse, at least weakly. I've been hesitant to weigh in on this, but there have been a number of claims above that the outcome of the 2023 RFC represents the "status quo", and I have to politely disagree. I have created and edited quite a few articles on the stratum of British gentry who tend to be entitled to a postnominal or two and the bulk of these articles still conform to the pre-2023 standard. I have seen a few removals of postnoms (I think by 10mmsocket) but by and large a new editor creating a new article based on existing practice would be likely to include them. The result of the 2023 RFC is much closer to a failed attempt at prescription than it is a description of our practices. While I can understand why this close is controversial, I do think that "no consensus" more accurately captures the status quo of our articles, if not of our process. (Frankly, I am not convinced that the initiator of the 2023 RFC had a good grasp of the scope of the articles that would be affected.)Choess (talk)03:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (POSTNOM)
I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording andconsequent discussions on my talk page, is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentencefailed to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposaldivided the community, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there wasweak consensus and not just consensus. — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo,S Marshall. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly sinceWP:BARTENDER refers to situations where there isa clear consensus to make a change from the status quo but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
As thecreator ofWP:BARTENDER, I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2.BD2412T22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.
SMcCandlish:The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
MWFwiki:Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
Nford24:The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
Peacemaker67:The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
SchroCat:I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.
I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, isnot normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.
At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—S MarshallT/C17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
S Marshall, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not arenot PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and usesMOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
A small note on the above,Ixtal—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes donot assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging.Ed[talk][OMT]18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one mightread that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification.That being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it.MWFwiki (talk)19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.
Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due tochanges to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn'tWP:DETCON correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".
Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers.Gecko G (talk)20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us towrite articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...] (fromWP:MOS). The lead sentence, which should bewritten inPlain English (fromMOS:FIRST) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to[telling]the nonspecialist readerwhat orwho the subject is (fromMOS:FIRST). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.
Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention inMOS:FIRST was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?).Gecko G (talk)02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak).Gecko G (talk)01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Gecko G: I think(?) you've missed thatMOS:FIRST andWP:LEADSENTENCE go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English".Ed[talk][OMT]02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic.Gecko G (talk)06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry,Gecko G, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action.Ed[talk][OMT]06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility"≠ complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".
°= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking toLEADSENTENCE was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English".Gecko G (talk)15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Gecko G, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having aguaranteed overturning. — ♠Ixtal(T /C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah. I was considering adding the template, but got concerned before I did so that I might not have been properly thinking of a possible reason not to use it. (Also, it seems bump might be better for this, which I hadn't considered.) --Super Goku V (talk)10:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmed pessimistic by their badge on their user page. Also, they don't even respond to talk page messages regarding their suspicious edits..Astrawiki3203 (talk)17:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
You're a sockpuppet of Eternal. @Joyous! Hurry up and block this account. I can already tell, they both use the same grammar. Why would a new IP address instantly come here and join a discussion? Also, they edited an article that Eternal definitely would edit.Astrawiki3203 (talk)22:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Anyways, you can click view history. Lol. Shows they got rid of the badge to save themselves from trouble. LIKE THE ADMINS WOULD FALL FOR THAT, LMAO. THEY CAN JUST GO BACK TO THE HISTORY.Astrawiki3203 (talk)22:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I have revoked Astrawiki3203's extended confirmed status, which was gamed by making ~180 utterly pointless edits to the public sandbox. They may request this to be restored once they have made another 180 sensible (or at least not blatantly senseless) edits. --DoubleGrazing (talk)09:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I can't decide whether this is a case ofWP:CIR, a very young editor, or just plain old-fashioned trolling (probably with some sockpuppetry thrown in). Anyway, this report should be closed before aboomerang hits its target.Phil Bridger (talk)09:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Unrelated to this report, I've blocked @Astrawiki3203 for 1 week for BLP violations. I was on the verge of issuing a NOTHERE indef, and if any admin thinks I've been too kind, feel free to alter the block. Lots of warnings deleted from the user's talk page. — rsjaffe🗣️09:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm rather tempted to siteblock for 3 years in hopes that the editor's maturity will catch up with their eagerness by then. Based on this thread and past warnings on their talkpage, I don't see any way forward where they're going to be a productive editor in the short-to-medium future. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Their request shows that they do not understand why they were blocked nor do they care to prove unblocking them would be a net positive for this project. They basically just shot themselves in the foot, from a one week block to longer. I endorse a longer block since they evidently aren't going to understand within a week, and they do not grasp Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. You can't disrupt pages because they're "dead". Also the pompous "revert his denial right away" lol.jolielover♥talk10:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
BTW, just as aCYA thing lest someone notice this at a later date and draw the wrong conclusion: Coincidentally, I am Facebook "friends" with that particular BLP subject. AFAIK we've never interacted; she sent me a friend request one day and I accepted months later when I noticed it, kind of expecting she'd reach out with some Wikipedia-related request or something, but she didn't. The BLPvios weren't the main impetus for my block regardless, but I figure it's best to still disclose that to avoid any appearance of impropriety. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse block. My initial block was based on an initial brief impression, as it was urgent to stop the BLP disruption and the middle of the night where I am, so I didn't want to evaluate further. I didn't initially indefinitely block the person as I saw a glimmer of good intentions buried in there somewhere.
I agree that the person appears to be young, enthusiastic, and very disruptive. A block until they are hopefully more mature is a good choice. — rsjaffe🗣️17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Shouldn't the denied unblock request be restored? PerWP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, it's one of the few things which can't be removed. I don't think the extension changes anything does it?I considered re-adding it myself but since Tamzin had extended the block and commented without restoring I decided not to do it unilaterally.Nil Einne (talk)10:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Arbitration Committee has enacted amotion in lieu of a full case:
The topic of Zak Smith is placed under theextended-confirmed restriction. This restriction is set to lapse automatically one year after the enactment of this motion. If an editor believes this restriction should be extended, they may request the Committee consider an extension by posting an amendment request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in the final month of the restriction's timeframe.
I just came across this account due to some problematic edits of theirs in a pastedit chain involving multiple accounts/IPs removing content in relative lockstep that made me look closer.The account edit and block log history shows patterns consistent withWP:Sleeper account activity, with periods of inactivity followed by brief heavy engagement in a controversial topic and warnings/reverts/blocks.The user ceased editing upon the account’s last block in February 2025 by @Star Mississippi.The user appears to have made a global courtesy vanish requesta month later which was executed, despite the accounts history that shows a pattern of failingWP:VANISHNOTIt is not a way to avoid accountability, an escape from criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention unless you genuinely intend to leave permanently. Users who have been disruptive, lost the community's trust, or are blocked or banned may not be granted courtesy vanishing. and effectively similar to the under aWP:CLOUD principle (should this be spelled out more clearly in the courtesy vanishing guideline?)As this seems to have been done with the intent to obfuscate, and the likelihood, had a CU been done at the time to find other accounts given the editing pattern consistent with SPI activity. Requesting reversal of the vanishing, as it obfuscates their prior editing since the redirect from their old signatures appears to also having been deleted, which is not default procedure and is only done on request perSignatures (on user talk pages, article talk pages, and project discussion pages) will not be changed, and will redirect to the new username by default, although this redirect can be removed upon request.Since the account has had many engagements on talk pages as well, the lack of redirect presents a problem for users unaware of the account history, so re-instating the account is the best course of action.Raladic (talk)17:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
They have not (at least not using the account since its locked). But if a user currently goes toTalk:Gay agenda#Lead description they will find the latest thread by @Ozone742 but because the redirect was deleted, if a user clicks on their profile just lands on a "this user doesn't exist" and a user has no idea who that user is because there is no history or linkage. (unless they manually go and find the log that links them loosely).Raladic (talk)20:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the ping. Renames can be reverted, just ask onmeta:SN to get an account unlocked, but I don't see the point in doing so – CU data is preserved with a rename and is in this case long gone. Account is also locked after vanishing so it cannot possibly take any action whatsoever. SPI is literally pointless here. WP:CLOUD doesn't apply here and I'm raising a more important question: vanishing is not granted to blocked/banned users (and found a few socks recently via renaming requests myself) but I don't think it's reasonable for global renamers to sieve through hundreds of edits to grant account vanishing (since other projects beside enwiki exist, there would be potentially 850+ projects to check edits for if that was the policy).A09|(talk)17:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
That's why I said, if a CU had been done at the time, since I know the logs are only kept for a month or so, so there's no point in doing an SPI now (I considered whether to file this at SPI or AN, but since I knew there likely was no way to check now, figured all we can do now is just make sure if someone does come across one of the previous edits, whether it's in the edit log (in which case it currently points to theUser:Renamed user 69d650c3b39235d55e0b6175df9cf787 page, so there at least you can see the long talk history, block log), but if it's on a talk page comment, it brings people to the "Create page" link athttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/iniidex.php?title=User:Ozone742&action=edit&redlink=1, which doesn't show the link to the public log, that is only shown on the non-create link athttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ozone742 and not all users know to try to remove the action=edit part and to sleuth their way to the logs to find out what happened to that user.
So, in this case since that user's last action led to a ban - I think it's reasonable to expect that an admin would open theBlock log - Wikipedia and see they have not edited since their block and their talk page shows a pretty clear pattern - this doesn't require sieve through hundreds of edits, it merely requires opening the block log and *maybe the talk page/talk page history.
I saideffectively similar to the under a WP:CLOUD principle - I'm aware we usually use cloud specifically when someone loses higher permissions, but the principle is the same and is similarly called out atWP:Clean start#Criteria, aka we don't usually allow a user a clean start, or vanishing if it may be used toavoid scrutiny. My point about spelling it our clearer is to adopt the clearer language like say Clean start (as it links to scrutiny and such).Raladic (talk)21:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User was blocked as an vandalism only account. Please take similar incidents to AIV in the future, this is for far severe stuff95.5.189.54 (talk)14:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for Awareness and Solidarity Hossein Ronaghi, Persian Wikipedia Administrator
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I respectfully wish to bring to your attention the current situation ofHossein Ronaghi, a human rights activist, civil society advocate, blogger, journalist, political prisoner, and long-standing contributor and administrator on Persian Wikipedia. He has been imprisoned by the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran due to his advocacy for freedom of expression and human rights.
Mr. Ronaghi has recently entered a critical phase of a hunger strike. After 22 days without solid food, he has now refused both food and water for the past four days, reportedly consuming only one glass of water at the insistence of fellow prisoners, and receiving a single IV injection.
His stated wish has always been the freedom and dignity of the Iranian people. Regardless of political views, his commitment to knowledge and openness aligns with the core values of the Wikimedia movement.
I kindly ask the global Wikipedia community to be aware of his situation and, where appropriate and in line with Wikimedia policies, to consider ways to express solidarity or raise awareness.
I want to say this is deeply tragic. I was just bringing up the point that unveiling people's identities would be a cause of harm toLarry Sanger. I hope he is freed and lives to see his wish come true.jolielover♥talk17:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
This appears to be a request for awareness, not for any particular action, so I don't think there's a need to take that tone with the OP. There's indeed nothing we can do, but we can at least take note the plight of this fellow editor, as jolielover has. Nor is this entirely unrelated to the English Wikipedia: Those in the English-speaking world, at this particular historical moment, would do well to think about what it's like to live in countries without freedom of speech, and what it means to be a Wikipedia editor right now given how things are changing in some places. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. It saddens me everyday to see other editors in Western Asia be marginalised and censored for trying to make information freely accessible for us all. A lack of education on subjects is, in my view, what leads to hatred. I am concerned about the current political climate, especially since I live here, too, and must be careful with what I edit and be vague enough in what I say for my safety. Anyway, even though we cannot do anything, in my view it doesn't violate anything to post it here since it is a noticeboard with information of interest. Especially since Sanger's unexpected return yesterday.jolielover♥talk18:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. If there's much more to be said here, it should in fairness probably be moved toWP:VPM, because this isn't particularly admin-related, but I don't think this was entirely the wrong place to put this thread, as it does concern a sister-wiki admin, and we do in fact have a recentthreat of investigation into 15 enwiki admins (i.e. the arbitrators) from the government of the country from which most of our admins hail. It's good for all of us to be thinking about these things, both for selfless and selfish reasons. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is doing here when this doesn't even have anything to do with the English Wikipedia. I suggest that this thread be closed as out of scope.88.97.192.42 (talk)18:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I have just read the thanks that I received for reminding people ofWP:BITE, and I think I need to do that again. The OP may not have been following Wikipedia guidelines perfectly, but I, for one, am grateful to receive a reminder of the lengths some people go to to protect the free dissemination of knowledge.Phil Bridger (talk)18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:Amber Mountain chameleon (Calumma amber) male Montagne d’Ambre 2.jpg
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Number 6 might be shoehorned in under "character handling issues", andCommons:File naming suggests not abusing Unicode, and that "strange punctuation can be replaced with standard quotes and commas".
I'm happy for the curly d' to be replaced. I didn't upload it as 'strange punctuation'. It was just my file name, so there's a weakness in the Commons processing of uploads of the apostrophe.Charlesjsharp (talk)20:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible need to bulk-delete Myanmar village stubs
I have come across a large number of Myanmar village stubs of questionable quality. Two examples I have already sent to PROD before I noticed the scale of the issue areRgangkum, Chipw andRgangkum, Hsawlaw. These articles all have almost identical content of the form "X is a village in Y Township, Z State, Burma." and give very imprecise coordinates (degrees and minutes, but no seconds) and they are all citing one or two sources (some combination of GEOnet Names Server or Maplandia and Bing Maps). I spot-checked a few articles and it appears that they have been produced by 3 different editors, though it is hard to tell who produced which article without looking at the history.
Some of the articles are linked in the followingKachin State andSagaing Region township and district pagesChipwi Township,Hsawlaw Township,Shwegu Township,Bhamo Township,Homalin District,Kale Township,Banmauk Township. By my estimate we are already approaching ~1000 articles here, there are likely more that are not listed in a township page. Hopefully all of them are in the Populated places by region categories under the Populated places in Myanmar category. The problem seems mostly confined to Populated places in Sagaing Region and Populated places in Kachin State categories as the number of pages in the other categories seems more reasonable though probably worth having a look there as well.
The question is what to do about this? For examples of the articles listed inChipwi Township for somewhere like the aforementionedRgangkum, Chipw I have not been able to find any mention in any reliable sources,Sawnkyawn could conceivably be an alternate translation of Shankyaw (25.760588682378096, 97.9916423226629) andChipwi is clearly a notable place.
The volume of the articles seems just too much to do a thoroughWP:BEFORE for each one of them to see if they are verifiable and even so I'm not sure if flooding PROD with hundreds of these articles is a productive use of anyone's time. In my view the best option would be to filter out the articles that are clearly pointing to an actual village andWP:TNT rest.Giuliotf (talk)17:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Worth pointing out I have tried to have such geo stubs deleted enmasse and it was rejected, given that verifiable populated settlements are considered notable. Agreed with Giuliot but not sure this is the right place to discuss this. The idea of course 16-17 years back was to try to start developing great coverage of Myanmar geographically, but most are small villages with little more than a database ref. Nuking the villages and then developing the district and township articles is the way to go. I sorted outHkamti Township a while back, redirecting most of the stubs, but it's just too much work needed to go through it. The notable villages will likely be created eventually with proper content and sources.♦Dr. Blofeld18:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
As chief deleter-of-dubious-settlements, I must second Dr. B's proposal. Right now I am going through Indiana's "unincorporated communities", and I estimate I'm maybe a bit over half done, and the sourcing on these is mostly better and the materials for verification are likely far more available. And that has taken a year and a half, involving 355 deletion nominations; I've probably looked at and not nominated at least twice that many. In terms of the work involved, never minding who ought to be doing it, it makes much more sense to delete the lot and start over, particularly since GEOnet and the like are known to have reliability issues.Mangoe (talk)19:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
If this is not the right place then I'm happy to move this discussion somewhere else, as for the outcome, I'm fine with whatever the outcome, my preferred choice would be deletion after some basic filtering, but the important thing for me is to have a consensus about how to handle this as its one thing toWP:BEBOLD with one or two articles, but when dealing with this many it would clog up whatever avenue is chosen to deal with them and I think the community would need to be on board for that.Giuliotf (talk)20:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Your bit about imprecise coords isn't generally a problem with settlements; as long as the article is correct that it's a village, minutes are routinely sufficient, because seconds are for things more on the scale of individual buildings. Sure, it's good to get seconds when we can — might as well focus on the centre of the community — but it's not something we should expect with typical towns.Nyttend (talk)21:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I guess I maybe over-estimated the difference the lack of seconds would make, in which case a lot of the coordinate are either outright wrong or simply aren't populated places, for exampleKyokha picked at random doesn't point anywhere near a discernible settlementGiuliotf (talk)21:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
In densely populated tropical areas it's fairly common for a location specified in minutes to indicate a point in the midst of a cluster of villages, where it can be difficult to work out which one is meant. The other issue, particularly in this region, is that the actual sources are very frequently old maps of quite dubious accuracy. I seem to recall a case of a Myanmar location that was sourced (eventually) to GNS, where their authority was a military map from WW II! As far as Kyokha is concerned, GNS gives26°40′59″N98°19′53″E / 26.68306°N 98.33139°E /26.68306; 98.33139 for a location, which turns out to be more or less nowhere and is consistent with what the article says, within a few seconds each way. The listings don't give sources, so no idea where they got that from. But there's plainly not a settlement there.Mangoe (talk)01:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
A minute of latitude is equivalent to one nautical mile at the poles (by definition of that measurement), or a little more than 1800 metres, and a minute of longitude is roughly the same at the equator; it decreases to nothingness at the poles, but since Myanmar is mostly tropical (its extreme points are roughly 9°54'N and 28°30'N), that shouldn't matter hugely; you can assume that a minute in either direction is just a little less than a nautical mile, which is generally sufficient for a town. I agree with Mangoe's comments, but if the village really does exist nearby and is surrounded by countryside, at worst it shouldn't be hard to find on Google Maps. If you can't find anything at provided coords, and if it's not in the midst of a cluster of villages, I think you can conclude that it's disappeared, that it never existed, or that the coords are completely wrong. Ghost towns are notable — an existing town is, and a notable entity doesn't lose notability merely because it ceases to exist — but I'd be more open to deleting articles about ghost towns in this situation, simply because we can't tell whether such an article (1) covers a ghost town or (2) is outright wrong somehow.Nyttend (talk)02:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Nowhere and nothing isautomatically notable, and this goes for towns/villages also. Even the GEOLAND standard requires legal regonition, not simply that the location has a name and that people lived there at some point.FOARP (talk)17:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in most cases you can find the precise coordinates and see they are legit villages on Google Earth. You can add some location observation data to flesh it out but if there is no info online about it aside from a database listing I think we should redirect to a list of settlements with coordinates and tabled summary if verifiable. When the sources are available then separate articles can be created. Would advise the same on Carlos's Iran short stubs. Hkamti is an example of what we should do. We shouldn't be deleting or redirecting village tracts IMO,Mepok was once an xx is a village database stub. Some can be expanded, but just too time consuming going through all the townships.♦Dr. Blofeld08:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Giuliotf: The xxx is a village and database ref isn't just contained to Myanmar either, it's long been a problem on here for many developing world countries. What I would suggest is starting a new proposal to change theWP:GEOLAND guidelines on settlements. Suggested revision."While most human populated settlements are generally considered notable, in many cases where there is no information about the place online aside from a GEONames or database ref and the article has been a short stub for many years, consider redirecting the article into a higher administrative division article or a tabled list of settlements by division with coordinates until more information about the place can be found online to justify a full article". No admin is going to blanket delete a thousand Burmese villages. Gain a new consensus in adjusting the notability guidelines would be my suggestion. If that fails, you are still free to take whatever neccessary action you want in sorting out Myanmar. ♦Dr. Blofeld09:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Actually in looking it already says " If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." But I think this should be elaborated on with my suggestion to give editors a better idea.♦Dr. Blofeld09:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
These articles are really very problematic. I too have spent quite some time trying to clean up these mass-created articles. They are based mostly on GNS, which is an unreliable source (see the RSN consensus on this). Many of them patently do not exist, or at least not as villages.FOARP (talk)17:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:AFD is in need of more participation. In recent weeks the number of discussions that have languished for lack of attention from !voters is considerably larger than usual in my experience as an AfD closer. Indicators of this include the number of discussions admins have allowed to remain in the "old" section in the hopes of attracting !voters; the number of discussions in which regular closers have chosen to participate instead of closing; and the proportion of discussions being relisted. I have theories as to why this is happening, but those are besides the point: the solution is clearly more engagement. I imagine other regular closers would agree with me.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I've been spending quite a bit of time in AfD over the last week or two (because I have been participating in the NPP backlog drive), although I'm not usually a regular. I've been struck by the need for more participation too. But also, couldn't the admins and other closers potentially make AfD a little bit more efficient just by taking a slightly more hardline approach?
What I mean is this:
If an article is nominated and nobody comments on the listing, it should always be soft-deleted as though it were an expired PROD (rather than being relisted, as sometimes happens at present: e.g.here, to take a random example).
If an article is nominated and attracts one comment in support and no objections, this consensus of two should usually be treated as consensus for a hard deletion (rather than the item being relisted or soft deleted).
If an article that has previously been tagged for PROD but has had the tag removed, or that has been soft deleted or deleted through PROD and then restored on request, is nominated by someone other than the person who nominated or tagged it before, and if nobody comments on the nomination, this should usually be treated as consensus for a hard deletion (rather than the item being relisted as ineligible for soft deletion), since this situation implies that at least two people have considered the deletion justified and no-one has set out any rationale against it.
If an article is nominated and attracts one comment in support and one in opposition, the closer should give serious consideration to treating this as consensus for deletion (rather than relisting), if on the face of it the arguments against deletion do not seem to have much weight or are not based on policy (as sometimes seems to happen, especially when the opposing editor is the page creator).
If participants in AfDknew that articles would usually be deleted under the circumstances outlined above (albeit not invariably, since of course the closer must still ultimately use their judgement!), this would not only reduce the number of relistings, but would also mean that AfD participants would not feel the need to spend time commenting on proposals that are unlikely to be opposed or that have been looked at by two editors already (as e.g.here, to take a random example), and could instead spend their limited time looking at listings where a rough consensus of two or three editors hasn't been reached yet.
Probably someone will now say that I'm not very experienced at AfD and therefore don't know what I'm talking about. But still, it seems to me that AfD is operating as though maximum participation and consensus were the priority, which would be great if there were loads of participants, but I think perhaps it would be better to consider operating slightly more in the interests of efficiency and saving editors' time, along the above lines.Dionysodorus (talk)21:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Dionysodorus: Thoughtful comments on the process are welcome. I would at least agree that in discussions with low participation, looking at the weight comments should get can sometimes show a consensus where raw numbers might suggest a relist. However, a bare minimum of participation is necessary for the process to be meaningful. I usually require participation from three editors to find a consensus for anything. Expanding the soft deletion process as you propose may be a way around that. It would require a community consensus to implement, but you could propose such an implementation.Vanamonde93 (talk)21:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a policy change ought necessarily to be needed for closers to treat unopposed nominations as soft deletes, since an unopposed nomination meets exactly the same threshold as a successful PROD (which is in itself nothing more than an unopposed tagging): indeed closers sometimes do this already, just not consistently (e.g.here andhere). And is there actually anything in existing policy to prevent closers treating 2 vs 0 or 2 vs 1 as a consensus in cases where theprima facie case for deletion is strong and arguments against deletion are not expressed or transparently weak? I think that would be entirely in the spirit ofWP:CLOSEAFD andWP:NHC.
So all I really meant to suggest was that you closers could be a bit bolder in closing discussions, not necessarily that we need a policy change. If you think there's any merit in what I'm saying, perhaps the ideal starting point would be for you closers to discuss it relatively informally (which could then either lead to an informal change of approach or to the proposing of more formal guidelines to the community), rather than me trying to create policy saying that you should proceed in a certain way, especially if such a change of policy might not be needed to do some of this. (If it would be useful, we could even ping the regular closers and have such a discussion here.)Dionysodorus (talk)07:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I'd argue that if people are closing 'no participation' AfDs (after one or two relists, natch) as 'no consensus' thenthat is arguably inappropriate. There is absolutely no need to change any policy to close an undiscussed, uncontested AfD as asoftdelete. Just relist it twice, and if nobody discusses it, hit 'close'. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
But what I'm saying is that uncontested nominations should always be closed as soft delete after one weekwithout any relisting (as only occasionally seems to happen at present). When an article is PRODded it gets deleted after a week without delay, so there's no reason why uncontested AfD nominations shouldn't be soft-deleted after a week too. In my view, the unnecessary relisting of nominations should be avoided, because commenting on these unnecessary relistings takes up the limited time of the relatively small number of AfD participants and distracts them from commenting on cases that actually require discussion, which in turn contributes to the problem that Vanamonde raised at the start of the thread.Dionysodorus (talk)23:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. If you look at the various processes we need more folks to help, marginal notable articles are not the most essential part of Wikipedia. More soft deletes will lead to a higher share of 'mistakes', but they're easily reversible. Editor time is precious. That seems to be in line with current policy, where closers have this discretion:WP:NOQUORUM:Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.—Femke 🐦 (talk)18:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
At it happens I disagree with this.@Dionysodorus andFemke: There's a considerable potential distinction between soft deletion and regular AfD deletion: the former is reversible by any editor requesting it in good faith, whereas the latter mandates at the very least recreation that is substantially different from the deleted version, and in practice usually requires additional sourcing in order to not face the same outcome at AfD. We softdelete articles after an AfD with no participation because it is functionally equal to a PROD. An AfD with 2 or 3 editors opining "delete" has received additional scrutiny from 1 or 2 editors, and a SOFTDELETE closure negates their participation. That said, that's a theoretical problem. If someone could show that SOFTDELETEd topics are not subject to recreation significantly often - or no more than regular AfD outcomes - that would negate the issue, and if we had such data I imagine adjusting our practice much more palatable.Vanamonde93 (talk)18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
If things are working as intended, there should be a higher recreation rate for softdeleted articles. The more interesting question is to look at the rates of recreation in either category, and estimate the amount of editor time saved / spent if we were to change practice here. I should probably start a list of 'research questions' for Wikipedia.
It seems like there is almost one request atWP:REFUND a day to restore a soft deleted article. No idea how many articles get soft deleted daily and what the time commitment is at REFUND.—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
re:"If things are working as intended, there should be a higher recreation rate for softdeleted articles", that's precisely why expanding the scope of soft deletion to include topics that editors besides the nominator have declared to be non-notable is potentially a problem.Vanamonde93 (talk)20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you may have slightly misunderstood what I am suggesting,Vanamonde93. My problem is with the fact that at present nominations that attract no participation commonlyaren't being soft deleted after a week (as the equivalence with PRODs would suggest, and as your comment at 18:47 seems to suggest you agree they should be), but rather are being relisted. I'm not saying that soft deletion should be expanded to cover anything that is currently hard deleted: on the contrary, I suggested in my initial comment above that nominations that attract even only one supporting !vote (which tend to get soft deleted at present) should be hard deleted.Dionysodorus (talk)21:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Dionysodorus: I don't believe I misunderstood: I focused on your idea of expanding SOFTDELETE because that felt like a substantive proposal, whereas AFAIK we do regularly handle nominations with no participation as we should. I know I do. Are you aware of a considerable volume of SOFTDELETE-eligible articles that aren't being so deleted? Remember that PRODs and previous AfDs preclude soft deletion.Vanamonde93 (talk)21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: But I didn't propose any expansion of soft deletion in the first place, except inasmuch as I suggested that any nominations with no participation should be soft deleted rather than relisted (as I think does sometimes happen: I citedthis example above, but I'll have a look for others).
Apart from that, all my suggestions were about reducing relisting in favour ofhard deletion: that is to say, I think that nominations that result in 2 vs. 0, 2 vs. 1 where the opposing arguments are obviously weak, or even unopposed nominations that are ineligible for soft deletion because they have been soft deleted or PRODded before, should all behard deleted after a week without relisting (not soft deleted!).Dionysodorus (talk)21:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
P.S.@Vanamonde93: In today's log so far, there are three relistings of nominations with no participation:
None of these articles appears to have been previously soft-deleted or PRODded. I think perhaps you would be able to get the same result by looking at the log for most other days.Dionysodorus (talk)21:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I am one of the admins who generally relists AFDs with no participation rather than soft deleting the article. I do that for two reasons, one more philosophical and one more practical. The more philosophical one is that policy ordinarily requires a consensus to delete an article and while it's true that policy also recognises PRODs and soft deletions – which are exceptions to that rule –, I find it more in keeping with the spirit of the deletion policy to relist a discussion with no participation, in hopes of attracting more attention to it, so that a consensus can form – which does indeed happen, such ashere. After all, we are deleting someone's work, I think it only fair to have a full discussion before doing it, unless there is something in the article requiring urgent attention. The more practical reason is that soft deletion can end up creating more work. Anyone can contest it at any time and, then, the article has to be recreated and, if truly unnotable, has to be nominated again. So, trying to see if a more thorough discussion can be had now, in my opinion, can save time later. However, if it turns out that the general feeling of the community is that relisting a discussion instead of simply soft deleting it is a waste of resources, I have no problem soft deleting articles. But I'm not sure AN is the best place for this discussion... — Salviogiuliano08:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it just has to come down to admin discretion. I have no trouble soft-deleting when the situation calls for it, but sometimes it's not what makes the most sense: for instance, I just finished relistingthis one (where the article was brand-new and any soft deletion would very likely be challenged) andthis one (where the nominator wanted other viewpoints and had specifically chosen not to use PROD). I don't have an issue with nudging things a little closer to the soft-deletion end of the spectrum, but a bright-line rule wouldn't be a good idea.Extraordinary Writ (talk)22:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that we can't close an AfD as soft delete if the article has previously been PRODed or brought to AfD.WP:NOQUORUM says that "the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement". It also says that "[c]ommon options include, but are not limited to" relisting, closing as no consensus, "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" (e.g., hard deletion), or "soft deleting the article".voorts (talk/contributions)22:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Star Mississippi and I have been talking about a decline in participation in AFDs that we've noticed over the past 2 1/2 years now. I don't think there is just one reason why the decline has happened but I know we have lost a lot of subject matter experts, unfortunately. And I think, this is a guesstimate, that we've lost a lof of inclusionists. It's hard when you tend to argue "Keep" to bust your butt looking all over for sources and the consensus STILL being to delete an article. I think those folks, after a while, just thought that their energy would be better spent elsewhere and left after months of frustration. I do know that it's a whole lot easier to be a deletionist as they usually don't have to provide a justification for their arguments. If you scan down the daily log, it's easy to come across a lot of discussions that are just a straight list of "Delete", "Delete", etc. My own perspective is in the middle, working in AFDLand for five years now has exposed me to a lot of junk articles that have been written over the past 24 years and it's good to clean this clutter out. But I can't help but notice a high burnout ratio for participants who tend towards the "Keep" end of the spectrum.
Looking at the participants has always been my approach when discussing the situation at AFDLand which has been a problem since about 2022-23. I have never thought of approaching this problem by changing our threshold of what qualifies as a Delete, or Soft delete. I disagree with some of the opinions brought up but it's great for us to be having this discussion.LizRead!Talk!01:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
This is all very interesting, and I am grateful toSalvio Giuliano andLiz for explaining their approaches. At the expense of possibly testing everyone's patience, it does occur to me that there are also other more radical ways in which deletion processes could be reformed to reduce the number of listings that required discussion, if low participation were felt to make this desirable (although perhaps the problem isn't so severe as to require this at all).
For instance, what if we got rid of PROD and replaced the two-tier system of PROD and AfD with a two-stage process? It could be the case that all nominations for deletion (except for speedy deletion) took the form of AfD-style listings in a "Preliminary AfD": unopposed nominations, or nominations opposed only on clearly insubstantial grounds, would generally be soft deleted after a week; but any listing that any editor on reasonable grounds opposes (or thinks needs discussing more fully: this could include the nominator) would immediately be moved to regular AfD for fuller discussion; and any listing that the deleting admin doesn't think should be deleted (or thinks requires fuller discussion) could also be moved by them to regular AfD at the end of the week. Also, requests to undelete soft-deleted articles could be reformed in such a way that they would require a reasoned response to the original nomination, and in such a way that the original nomination and the objection would then immediately be posted at regular AfD for discussion, where consensus could then emerge to keep the article permanently or to delete it permanently.
If we had a system like that, uncontroversial listings wouldn't end up in regular AfD at all, and participants there would spend their time looking at actually controversial cases rather than just adding a third, fourth or fifth "delete" !vote to an article on a subject that clearly doesn't satisfy notability. Also, it would become impossible to contest a PROD or to undelete soft-deleted articles without reasoned grounds, which would eliminate the problem that Salvio Giuliano mentioned of people reviving articles that have been just deleted and thereby necessitating a whole new nomination: everything would be streamlined, because the discussion would always be kept in one place rather than sometimes being spread across a PROD tag, an undeletion request, and sometimes more than one AfD thread. Obviously anything of this kind would require community consensus in a more suitable venue than AN, and I put forward this suggestion simply for the sake of throwing ideas around and in case anyone finds it interesting.
I do agree withExtraordinary Writ that it is essential that any approach should allow for the closer to use their discretion: when I said "always", I should have said "always except if there is a good reason why not". I also kind of agree with Salvio Giuliano, in that ideally everything should be discussed in detail and on the basis of consensus: but nothing I'm suggesting would prevent even a single reasonable objection from prompting a fuller discussion.Dionysodorus (talk)22:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
but any listing that any editor on reasonable grounds opposes (or thinks needs discussing more fully: this could include the nominator) would immediately be moved to regular AfD for fuller discussion This would increase the number of AfD discussions. I've made PRODs that have been declined that I didn't bother taking to AfD after because I was satisfied with the dePRODing editors' response.voorts (talk/contributions)22:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, requests to undelete soft-deleted articles could be reformed in such a way that they would require a reasoned response to the original nomination, and in such a way that the original nomination and the objection would then immediately be posted at regular AfD for discussion, where consensus could then emerge to keep the article permanently or to delete it permanently. I'm not opposed to this.voorts (talk/contributions)22:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts: I would have thought the two things (requiring justification for contesting any proposed deletion, and requiring justification for requesting any undeletion) logically ought to go together. Also, I'm sure editors do occasionally PROD an article and then find themselves convinced by the rationale of the person who removes the tag, but surely that can't happen so often as to make a significant difference to the numbers that would end up in AfD? I would have thought any such increase would be more than offset by the fact that many pages currently end up in AfD because a PROD tag has been removedwithout sufficient justification, whereas on my scheme only pages where the objector can provide a justification would ever end up in AfD.
In any case, the nominator could easily withdraw the nomination if convinced by the objection (as sometimes happens at AfD as it is), and so such cases need not actually take up AfD participants' time to speak of.Dionysodorus (talk)07:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I have been participating in AfD in recent weeks, I'm not hugely experienced. But I do see there is a problem here. There are just too many deletes and not enough regular participants. What I'm seeing is one or two deletionist editors getting into a somewhat one-sided debate with a new editor, and the cards get stacked in favour of delete. The danger here is that this process is supposed to give due diligence, and yet that isn't happening, almost the opposite. My vote of sympathy to those who do Closing, it must be dispiriting to see the same nomination on a revolving door. I certainly agree with the point that if you start with an ATD mindset then it can be pretty soul destroying, as Liz has said, and indeed you think "why waste my time on this?" Yes we need more participants, but in the absence of that there is a logical necessity: reduce the number of delete nominations to ensure due diligence actually happens.
Incidentally there is a critical difference between BLP and historical articles. If a BLP gets scrubbed there is a very good chance it will be (correctly) reinstated if GNG eventually comes in place. TOOSOON duly sorts itself out. But deletions on historic items are much. uuch more troubling in my view. The chances are the material will be permanently lost, off the back of changing emphasis on sourcing.ChrysGalley (talk)09:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
New editor here who takes an interest in article winnowing.
I'm not qualified to comment on how admins close AfD's (though, for what it's worth, no objections to encouraging admins to make more use of soft deletes), but I can fully see how AfD could become a deletionist echo chamber. I also unfortunately don't see a way to stop this due to the very nature of the process, where the burden of proof is on Keep !voters. In an ideal world, the burden of proof would be on the editor who creates the article as part of verifiability requirements, because I see the GNG as simply a practical matter of "if no reliable sources discuss this topic, how are you going to write a verifiable article?"
Unfortunately, we don't live in this ideal world, and I don't see any way to fix it apart from superficial fixes, like giving out awards for demonstrating the notability of topics, stuff in the scope of WikiProject Notability. The 'damage' from large amounts of unreferenced articles has been done, and the best course of action might just be to introduce non-systemic changes through a process likethis one for the GA backlog to keep AfD useful for as long as possible.JustARandomSquid (talk)13:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Addition of abusefilter-modify-restricted right to EFMs
A recent Phabricator ticket (T405999) added theabusefilter-modify-restricted right to English Wikipedia edit filter managers to allow non-administrator edit filter managers to modify filters using the "Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status" action. The change's deployment and the extent of prior community discussion and support have been raised as issues on the ticket. It may also be a good opportunity to review how configuration changes are evaluated and deployed following community discussions.Daniel Quinlan (talk)09:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Quinlan can you clarify what the intent of this section is - is it purely informational? Are we discussing (here? on the phab ticket?) whether we want this change on en.wp? Something else?Thryduulf (talk)10:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Original proposer here. The question being raised is whether the change has the support of the broader community. I maintain that managing edit filters is within the remit of EFMs, and theabusefilter-modify-restricted right only allows the additional ability of editing filters with "Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status" used as an action (this allows for socks who game autoconfirmed before being disruptive to have their autoconfirmed revoked automatically). It is worth noting that in the original RfC covering assignment of the EFM right to non-admins, the original text stated (and the current text atWP:EF still states):The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users; when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it. Demonstrated ability that one can and will use it safely is absolutely critical. It seems unnecessary to separate filter editing abilities away from non-admin EFMs, when those same non-admin EFMs are trustworthy and capable of editing those filters. If we proposed that disallow filters not be editable by non-admin EFMs, the proposer would be laughed out of the room. I fail to see how it is any different for revoke autoconfirmed.
I note also that non-admins with the edit filter manager group canalready restore autoconfirmed when it is revoked by a filter that is set to revoke autoconfirmed (seeSpecial:AbuseFilter/tools with an account with EFM added). Edit filter managers can also add all actions, including disallowing edits, even before the change. The only difference is that they are now able to add revoke autoconfirmed. The question being asked here is whether the community trusts non-admin edit filter managers to, well, manage edit filters. I personally didn't think it would be that controversial of a change, though I welcome Daniel bringing it here since apparently I underestimated that.EggRoll97(talk)16:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
So for clarity if the editor is already autoconfirmed the filter action will do nothing, it only will stop editors receiving autoconfirmed when they don't have it? Is it a permanent change to the editor so other edits not caught by such a filter will also not grant autoconfirmed or does it only mean those edits don't count?Nil Einne (talk)18:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
If the action triggers, the user will be blocked from becoming auto/extended confirmed for the next few days. It will not revoke existing permissions, unlike what the name suggests.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)18:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I think this is an issue of interest to administrators. The post is both informational and for discussion. It's not a call for a specific action, at least not yet. I'm most concerned that the community wasn't adequately notified and that significant configuration changes can be implemented with minimal input. At the very least, the community needed to be made aware of the change. I don't think Phabricator is the best place for discussion so here is fine.Daniel Quinlan (talk)16:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
How many people does this actually apply to? It seems we only have a handful of non-admin EFMs, and even fewer who aren't former admins. I am fine with the proposed change, although it would seem better to me to just promote the relevant people to sysop. (It should be easier than a software configuration change, but I know it isn't). —Kusma (talk)16:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
It applies to 16 people and one bot. Of the people, I would estimate only about a third are actively involved with edit filters, and six have fewer than 20 edits in 2025.Daniel Quinlan (talk)16:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
My admin coloring script (because I like to have a colorful display and all) shows me 16 non-admin EFMs, of which 8 are former admins (and one is a former steward). There is another EFM account that is a bot, run by one of the current EFMs, which does some minor updates to one specific filter. That makes 8 non-admins who have passed a request and community consensus process to be assigned EFM, with the rest passing RfA. I'd saypromote the relevant people to sysop is somewhat of a harder sell. Some pass, though it's worth noting I tried that path and didn't succeed (seeWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EggRoll97_2), for good reasons.EggRoll97(talk)16:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
If this is a call for opinions, my opinion is that edit filter managers can already cause all sorts of problems vastly more efficiently (and often with less oversight) than any admin. This adds fairly minimal additional vectors for abuse or poor judgement to very trusted editors, and makes their lives easier.Rusalkii (talk)21:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
That's not an unreasonable take about the specific change. As I mentioned, I'm most concerned that the community wasn't adequately notified and that significant configuration changes may be implemented without sufficient notification and input. Regardingless oversight, I think there's far more oversight for filters thanmost administrator actions (blocks, deletions, page protections, etc.) because users are able to report false positives toWP:EFFPR every single time an edit results in a significant action (e.g., warning or disallow),WP:EFFPR is monitored by a broad set of people, and administrators, edit filter managers, and edit filter helpers all regularly review and iteratively improve filters. To put it another way, there are only hundreds of active filters, but there are many orders of magnitude more administrator actions that go without substantial review. It's much easier for some types of problematic administrator actions to go unnoticed for a long time (e.g., dubious deletions).Daniel Quinlan (talk)21:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
That's fair. I meant there's generally more eyes on deletions than edit filter changes, but if reporting false positives is common reasonably common then it seems like problematic changes might be more likely to be caught, I know there's a mechanism for it but don't have. a great sense of how it's used in practice.Rusalkii (talk)00:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Deletion requested due to unauthorized publication by the university
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page about Ahlul Bayt International University was created without authorization from the university and contains potentially inaccurate or promotional information. Deletion requested by the official representative of the university.
Wikipedia articles do NOT require authorisation, however that article is on The Persian Wikipedia which is an entirely seperate project you will need to gom there to request deletion.Theroadislong (talk)13:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@WikiBuilder2025: that article is in the Farsi Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with us here at the English Wikipedia; each language version is a completely separate project. If you wish to discuss that article, you need to contact the Farsi Wikipedia's editors and/or administrators. --DoubleGrazing (talk)13:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Removing admin-only content as user is not an admin" - updating(sic) user page archives for no-longer admins?
Are these:[39][40][41] good edits? (Happy to accept them as GF)
This is not something I've ever seen done before. Yes, these are users who are no longer admins (for whatever reason), but these arearchive pages, of editors whowere admins at the time. I find this particularly concerning where it's done to a deceased admin of good reputation. I see no reason to do this, I don't think we should be doing it (and if we did, there'd be a 'bot).
The subcategories ofCategory:Wikipedia_administrators (and other privileged users) get cleaned up occasionally. People use categories to find admins, so having a non-admin there is not a positive. You might see edits similar to these, periodically, to remove the category. It's not really helpful to do it otherwise. No one checks the backlinks of a topicon to find an admin. --zzuuzz(talk)20:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I've just looked at Gonnym's talk page, where he assumes that you are making a fuss about this because you were a friend of RHaworth. I certainly was not a friend of RHaworth, but I still found that edit grossly inappropriate.Phil Bridger (talk)21:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
A top icon, a userbox or a category that says "This user is an administrator", when a user is not an admin for any reason, is bad for the project. These tools identify users and it can clearly confuse other users, who most don't understand the minute details, why someone isn't an admin but has the tag. These templates or categories didn't only appear on past admins, but also on editors with a few dozens of edits. As I've commented on my talk page, if somekind of tag is still wanted, a new template, that clearly distinguishes the editor as a past admin, can be created.Gonnym (talk)21:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
That might be a reason to remove it from an editor's userpage, but presumably someone digging through Roger's archives will know that he is no longer with us.voorts (talk/contributions)21:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, if those subpages ought to be removed (questionable), then surely that's a deletion not blanking? We basically never simply blank stuff, it's just not a useful end result.Andy Dingley (talk)22:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Removing the admin topicons is entirely cromulent. Admin topicons should not be on any page that does not belong to an active administrator, full stop. (I'd go so far as to say they shouldn't have been on the archive pages in the first placeat all evenwhile the admin was active - for, among other reasons, precisely this one). However the blanking of subpages isarguably against guidelines -In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. - and isabsolutelyan end-around of MfD, which is where these pages should be taken if they should no longer exist. Given that,@Gonnym: needs to receive a{{trout}} and pledge tonever make these sort of blanking edits of others' userspace pages again, lest they be sanctioned for it. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
"Admin topicons should not be on any page that does not belong to an active administrator, full stop. "
Why? We can control any 'side effects' separately. But labelling archive pages as "This was the page of an admin at the time it was archived." seems an entirely valid (and I'd say the best) interpretation for it. It's also (very clearly) our long-established practice. So you and Gonnym need to go through the regular consensus discussion [sic] processes if you want tochange that.Andy Dingley (talk)10:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Why? The fact a Wikipedian of your stature and tenure is asking 'why is it a problem to have something that says 'this user is an admin' on the page of a user who is not an admin' is troubling at best. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the reason to have any topicon on an archive page. As far as I've known, archived talk pages should just consist of archived talk page messages. There is no need for them to contain any "extras" to indicate some sort of status for the editor. I didn't know that there were some exceptions.LizRead!Talk!04:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Exactly as per voorts. Even if this was an admin defrocked in shame, if it was valid at the time of the archiving, I'm fine with keeping it. Like all the best archives, it's a robust snapshot in time.Andy Dingley (talk)15:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
There are several separate issues being brought up here, which have different solutions. As I see it:
Categories implying the user is an admin should always be removed from people who aren't admins. I would be shocked if that, by itself, were controversial - this was the underlying task Gonnym was trying to accomplish, and it only blew up because of the things below.
User basepages of non-admins should not normally have userboxes or topicons saying that the user is an admin. I can think of some exceptions to this - for example I use a long series of topicons on my userpage as a history of everything that ever happened to me so would probably want to keep the topicon (without a category) even if I were to resign adminship (although when I did exactly that OwenXremoved the topicons and I can't remember whether I didn't notice or noticed and didn't complain). Likewise I wouldn't mind memorializing a deceased admin's user page with{{deceased}} while leaving any userboxes or topicons it has unchanged, as the{{deceased}} template provides needed context.
I'm more in line with Andy Dingley re user archive subpages, though, I see no problem with letting those reflect what was true at the time.
Wikipedia:User pages implies that it is acceptable under certain circumstances to blank user pages of inactive users (WP:STALEDRAFT andWP:User pages#On others' user pages, among other things), so I don't fault Gonnym for extending the principle embedded there to this case, although I'm inclined to agree he extended it slightly too far.
@Pppery agreed re:archive pages, butWP:STALEDRAFT saysif the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues) but not ready for mainspace, let it be andWP:User pages#On others' user pages saysIf the materialmust be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, your edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate, then remove or fix the problem materialminimally (emphasis added). Based on thatthe edits that @LakesideMiners pointed out look like pretty cut and dry bad edits that should be reversed.CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!01:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Isn't there be some way to add a param to the templates that makes them not emit the category? This should be, like, a thirty-second edit to the topicon template.jp×g🗯️05:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies in advance that this will be a bit scatter-brained. Writing quickly on mobile before I go offline for a few hours.
Yesterday I warned three editors for an edit war overDraft:Matmo, which for whatever reason is now atDraft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025, and at the parallel draftDraft:Tropical Storm Matmo (2025), which after another strange move eventually found its way to be the articleTyphoon Matmo (2025). I really can't tell what's going on here—why there have been so many parallel drafts, and why everyone is edit-warring over them rather than merging them—but it was clear that the BLAR-warring was against policy (citing a misunderstanding of the sock policy with respect to proxies, plus an extremely bizarre appeal toMOS:DATE), so I issued my warnings and left it at that.Liz also gave one user a warning for bad page moves.
To those users' credit, they've stopped edit-warring, but now I see an edit war continues about whetherDraft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025 should be a redirect. On the one hand, I don't see why it should exist parallel to the article, but on the other hand, the two users to blank it have included personal attacks in their summaries, one making unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry and the other (who also incorrectly speedy-tagged the redirect) saying "rvv". It's also not clear if all the merging that's happened has followedWP:CWW.
I'm not pinging the involved users just yet because I'm not trying to start a thread to collectively discuss their content, and more hoping another admin can step in and figure out what combination of warnings, protections, and maybe blocks are necessary here. To be clear, for all I know it's correct that the IP is a sock, but so far in this saga they've been the only one to communicate clearly. Everything else here feels like some alternate reality version of Wikipedia.
Wouldn't life be so much easier if we got rid of draft space and developed articles in main space, like we used to? This is supposed to be a wiki, after all.Phil Bridger (talk)13:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin:, I'm an admin who knows the topic area pretty well. So it looks likeDraft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025 was created first by the IP on October 1, and a different draft was made a day later. The latter one has the edit history, so I don't think the draft needs to be preserved for edit history reasons. However, I now see there have been lots of edit wars over these drafts, so I don't know if they should remain for that reason. If not, it can be deleted as an unnecessary fork. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)17:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Not too sure if I should chip in here. Just one quick point: The "latter", as you called it, was the fork instead. And the one created on 1 October got considerably longer edit history (i.e. with more revisions) and has been kept more up-to-date than the fork.[42]203.145.95.215 (talk)17:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
To repeat myself: They don't seem to be interested in updating their article after occupying the main article namespace forcibly. They don't even mention in their article under its meteorological history section the landfall of the storm on the Leizhou peninsula earlier on 5 October, after almost twelve hours since it happened (when the storm has already re-emerged on the other side of the peninsula).203.145.95.215 (talk)17:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moving them all to draftspace would be an admin action and I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. I think it would be the right thing, but then I've seen other admins get in to trouble to going in without discussing at all first.FOARP (talk)18:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
having failed to get the desired result at afd, it turned into a bizarre proposal about the hypothetical creation of already created articles at vpp, and here it is coming to fruition as a strange end-run around the deletion process. If you want to delete or draftify, at minimum you need consensus... on a question about deleting or draftifying. —Rhododendritestalk \\19:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I understood it that way. You said explicitly"This RFC isn't about deletion" (which would then follow it wasn't about draftificaiton) in the RfC. Please seeUser talk:JoelleJay#Our mutual friend.
That being said, I have the capability to draftify all the List of Olympians articles myself and am willing to do that. Some care needs to be taken because I understand there are redirects with history (i.e. BLARed articles) that redirect to the list, and just draftifying the list pages would delete them. Ideallythe by-sport list recommended would be created instead, and the redirects would be retargeted to rows in that list (or an arbitrary row e.g. for multi-sport athletes). --Habst (talk)05:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, from which I gather you're OK with drafting these articles. I've draftified all the articles. I think, given the result at VPP, you should make a trial version first in draft rather than just mainspace the lot.FOARP (talk)15:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Are the redirects specific to an alphabetical listing of all Olympians? If so they are unlikely to be needed. Redirects are anyway cheap, and not a reason to block draftification whilst the issue identified in the VPP discussion are addressed, if doing so is otherwise acceptable.FOARP (talk)15:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Per my comment, I'm talked about BLARed articles with page history, which are notWP:CHEAP. They are not specific to an alphabetical listing of all Olympians. --Habst (talk)15:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
There's no rush to have these moved to draftspace. We can take our time to ensure proper care is given. FWIW, that proposal was so confusing ("is there support forcreation of liststhat already exist?") that I didn't really participate (aside from pointing out a few falsehoods), and probably others thought similar.BeanieFan11 (talk)15:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm OK with taking time, so long as it does not simply become obstruction-through-technicalities. It would be good for you to explain what exactly you want to take time for, now that the VPP discussion already closed some days ago.FOARP (talk)16:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
According to Habst, there are Olympians that redirect to some of those lists. We need to figure out what happens to them before moving the lists.BeanieFan11 (talk)16:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The most obvious large-scale, reasonable sorting would be a "List of Olympics from <country>", which still likely would need to be sub-listed to some extent. I'm surprised I'm not quickly finding such lists to start with.Masem (t)16:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm actually at the Wikipedia NYC hackathon right now and met some users who commented in the RfC IRL -- it was kind of surreal to have these types of conversations in person and has given me a new perspective. Please give us some time while the hackathon is ongoing, there is a plan for the future. But yes, there are Olympians that redirect to the lists. --Habst (talk)16:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Habst, please undo your moves to mainspace. Speaking as someone genuinely undecided on a list of all Olympians, there is no way to read the VP discussion as anything other than a consensus against their existence in mainspace at this time, and so moving them back to mainspace is effectively ignoring community consensus, regardless of what your intentions might have been. Broken redirects are a triviality. We have tools to deal with them.Vanamonde93 (talk)16:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
You realize you could draftify the redirects? Or ask for a refund, if they were deleted in the meantime? There's a ton of options here that don't involve ignoring an active consensus.Vanamonde93 (talk)16:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
OK, I will do that after the Wikimedia hackathon is over today. I did not move them all back to mainspace; only a few were moved at the time that FOARP said "I've draftified all the articles". Per an in person discussion I had, some care is needed because the existing tools to deal with broken redirects would delete them via bot or move them to draftspace, which would remove the Wikidata link. Doing a refund would not restore the Wikidata link. They are quite important. --Habst (talk)16:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@FOARP, I'm temporarily undoing these to give care to the redirects. Please give us one day, we are at the hackathon in person. --Habst (talk)17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Guys, I think we've been pretty clear here. Please stop trying to obstruct the carrying out of the VPP consensus.FOARP (talk)17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Guys, you've got two admins telling you to stop here. The next stage is a time-out. Please take this seriously.FOARP (talk)17:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@FOARP, please give us until the end of the day here. We are at a Wikimedia hackathon and the contents of the lists are being used as part of a project about to be presented. Also, there are redirects that need to be retargeted. That's completely reasonable. --Habst (talk)17:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
As an admin, you should absolutely not be edit-warringand fully protecting the pages to get your way. What is unreasonable about asking for one day? Both of you need to stop it.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Guys, this had already been explained to you, and not just by me. This is not me "getting my way". This is the consensus that these articles don't belong in mainspace being carried out. Vanamonde93 already explained to you what to do about the redirects.FOARP (talk)18:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
What should we do about the redirects? Also, this is being used in part for an in person project at the Wikipedia hackathon right now. Please give us until the end of the day. --Habst (talk)18:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
"You realize you could draftify the redirects? Or ask for a refund, if they were deleted in the meantime? There's a ton of options here that don't involve ignoring an active consensus."FOARP (talk)18:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
(ec) Once again,you, as the main editor in this dispute, are not in a position that would make it appropriate to fully-protect the pages while refusing a polite request for a mere one day to look into the redirects further. What is unreasonable about the request? This is disappointing to see from an administrator.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I responded to that -- draftifying would remove the Wikidata links which a refund would not restore, and the drafts would need to be decategorized. There is a plan to do this properly, I am busy at the Wikipedia hackathon right now. --Habst (talk)18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not so fussed about the timeline as to suggest a sanction for a few additional hours. But I amassuming that what you have is a real plan to implement the VPP consensus; that is, a plan that ends with these pages in draftspace, soon. If this is merely a delaying tactic, I do think we will be looking at sanctions here. That said,FOARP, that's not a great protection.Vanamonde93 (talk)00:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith. I have completed the archival of redirects and draftified the list articles perWikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Keeping the articles. My hackathon project won the "Best Game That Contributes Back to a Wiki" award and is relevant to these discussions we've been having; I look forward to improving it more and rolling it out to help bridge the gap between both sides on these issues. --Habst (talk)01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I closedthe AfD in question, and in my closure recommended a community-wide RfC about the intersection of NOTDB and NOTDIR with lists of sportspeople. I also explicitly noted that there was no consensus on the existence of these lists, and that further discussion would be needed as to their inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia. The RfC that was launched was much narrower, and I might perhaps have worded it differently, but I don't think it is reasonable to argue that it was out of process: it is the logical continuation of the dispute that did not conclude at AfD, and there is precedent for large-scale draftification or deletion following discussions at VPP.Vanamonde93 (talk)19:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
This is my thinking on the matter, and also having discussed this with an experienced former admin (FRAM) their view as well.FOARP (talk)18:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I respectfully ask the community to reconsider my ban. I understand now why I was banned: I created edit wars because I did not follow the rules to start discussions on the talk pages and wait for other opinions. Some of my words also sounded uncivil in English. I am sorry for this, and I have learned from it. I will not repeat that behavior. For the future, I will not edit existing articles about Freemasonry anymore. I know that this was the wrong way and it only created conflicts. But I would like to be allowed to finish my own article draft about the contradictions of Freemasonry (I will rename it to that – because I also renamed it in my German article). This was the reason why I came to en-WP in the first place. I started that draft already before my ban (see:User:Wikiprediger/Freemasonry criticism). It is based on facts and reliable sources, and I want to translate it step by step. See also the actual German version of this article:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger/Widerspr%C3%BCche_in_der_Freimaurerei. This is the Google-Translator Version (english):https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger/Widerspr%C3%BCche_in_der_Freimaurerei?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp I want to remark that I am on de-WP since January 2014 and had never any conflicts until my edits on Freemasonry in 2024. I understand that topics like Freemasonry are sensitive, and that is why I started a separate draft long ago – after I recognized the intensity of the conflicts – but the idea unfortunately came too late. My aim is not to attack, but to write a fact-based article that highlights contradictions and critical perspectives, supported by reliable sources. I promise to be very patient: first completing the German version, then waiting for review and discussion there. Only after that I will create an English version. I will follow all rules, respond to discussions, and start a review before publishing. My only goal is to contribute to Wikipedia and i think such an article is missing here. Please unblock me with the condition that I stay away from existing Freemasonry articles, but that I may continue to work on my own draft. I believe this would be a fair compromise. If I make mistakes, they can always be corrected or discussed. Thank you very much.Wikiprediger (talk)14:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll note that while I'm glad Wikiprediger is willing to take a TBAN, I did suggest that they not ask for the exemption for their draft. I would also support a TBAN from freemasonry, broadly construed, without the exception for the draft.voorts (talk/contributions)22:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I still don't think this should have been a CBAN, but now I don't think Wikiprediger should be unblocked because it's clear that they only want to use Wikipedia writ large toPOV-push their views on freemasonry.voorts (talk/contributions)23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Looking at Wikiprediger’s edits at de.WP, I am concerned that he is a bit of an SPA, focused on Freemasonry (from a negative POV). This was the topic area that resulted in his being blocked in the first place. Suggest a topic ban (broadly construed) if he is to return. This would include not working on his desired draft.Blueboar (talk)21:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I understand the concern, but in Wikipedia we should not be judged by personal opinion, only by how we use good sources.
There should not be a problem with my perspective on Freemasonry, as long as I use reliable sources and remain neutral.
There will not be an Edit-War again. We can discuss it on the talk page and ask for third opinions or reviews.
@Wikiprediger: it's not censorship. ATBAN (which I thought you agreed with based on your unblock request) is used to avoiddisruptive editing. You were banned by the community for being disruptive in that topic area, and you have indicated that you would like to continue editing in it. If you can edit productively for a significant amount of time (at least 6 months, preferably longer), you can come to the community and ask to have the restriction lifted.voorts (talk/contributions)01:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I think I would support this unless other issues that have not been mentioned come up but I don't see any way to enforce a topic ban EXCEPT for in the editor's sandbox. I think if this is the plan, it would be better for the editor to work on the English language verion of this article on the German Wikipedia and after appealing the topic ban here after a few months, then moving that article to this Wikipedia if that appeal is granted and the topic ban is lifted. However, this proposal might not get wide approval among other editors since the focus of this editor's work is still the subject that originally got them into this mess in the first place.LizRead!Talk!21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Liz: Thank you for your comment. I can accept working in my sandbox if that is the best way.
It will take some time anyway. First the German article surely will be discussed and maybe improved, then I can translate it step by step in the sandbox.
It would be best to do this in en:WP, so I can ask for review here. Also we can use the talk-page for discussions. I am used to finish articles as draft. When we have reached a consensus, the draft can then be moved into the article namespace.Wikiprediger (talk)01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment from Blocking Admin I implemented the consensus of the discussion and have not been able to follow the recent discussions on @Wikiprediger's Talk and will not have the on wiki time to do so. I support whatever consensus the community comes to on the unblock and potential topic bans.StarMississippi02:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Concerned. This doesn't feel right. Typically, editors who have experienced problems in a specific topic area but who want to contribute to the overall project will be happy to accept a topic ban from that specific area in order to be unblocked. Here we have someone who has never shown any interest in editing other subject areas, but who promises not to edit existing articles in their favoured topic area, and only wants to write their own article about the subject. I am concerned that this is, in a sense, setting them up for failure - this is a collaborative project, nobody gets to write theirown article about any subject, and when they discover that the 'I won't edit existing articles on the subject' firewall is not a two-way street I fear that we will be in for a lot more drama down the line.I would be happy to support an unblock with a topic ban on the subject of freemasonry, broadly construed, which could be appealed after six months of constructive editing in other subject areas while they learn the ropes. Six months of editing in the walled garden of their sandbox will not help them develop as a collaborative editor.GirthSummit (blether)03:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
In light of their recent comments (referenced below by jpgordon and others), I would no longer support an unblock with TBan in place.Oppose any unblock at this time.GirthSummit (blether)00:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I took a peek at the de-WP draft.[43] This is IMO the kind of article that will often contain a lot ofWP:SYNTH andWP:OR. For example, we have under the heading "Ethical understanding of well-known members of Freemasonry" (I'm using google translate, I don't speak german) the sentence "Harry S. Truman ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" with two cites. That is uncontroversial enough, but the cites makes no mention that this has any connection to Truman's FM, and is contradictory to it. An en-WP article about "Contradictions in Freemasonry", is supposed to be a summary ofWP:RS that discuss that subject, not a list of selected examples the WP-editor finds "contradictory".Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)05:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unban I speak fluent German, and had a thorough look at the draft over there. The title of the draft itself has already an npov-tilt, and we already are, at least in part, inOR, but more so inWP:SYNTH territory. A TBAN from freemasonry, broadly construed, including the draft would work imo.Lectonar (talk)09:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Just want to add that even if an article was accepted in DE-Wikipedia, it would not mean that it would be automatically accepted here. The rules for sourcing and notability are not identical.Lectonar (talk)09:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any unban not accompanied by a complete TBAN for at least a year. And after that, only lift the TBAN if Wikiprediger has done significant useful work on other topics. It seems entirely evident (see e.g. the comment about 'censorship' above) that Wikiprediger wishes to continue with the same POV-pushing that led to sanctions in the first place. We don't need that. And nor do we need synth-ridden POV forks padded out with random stuff that seems to have little to do with the supposed topic. Even if such nonsense is acceptable on de.wikipedia (which would surprise me), it won't be here.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock only with a broadly-construed topic ban to freemasonry definitely including the draft I think it would be unwise to allow a person who was cbanned for edit-warring over freemasonry to make what appears to be aWP:COATRACK article.Simonm223 (talk)14:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Support unblock, butonly with a topic ban on freemasonry, withno exception for any current drafts. If we trust this editor to write about freemasonry, there's no reason to prevent them from writing about freemasonry. And if we don't trust this editor to write about freemasonry (I'm in this camp), then there's no reason to allow any edits about freemasonry. I am explicitly against any sort of St. Augustine "Lord, give me a topic ban on freemasonry, but not yet!" nonsense. There's nothing preventing this editor from saving their draft on their own device and working on it offline, but allowing them to work on this topic on Wikipedia is a terrible idea.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)18:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unban after seeing the latest comment on their talk page that is referenced below. The veiled threats in order to exert leverage over the community in order to get to edit this article make me seriously question if the problems collaborating of others would be limited to the freemasonry topic.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unban I was planning on staying out of this discussion, since I started the one that got him cbanned in the first place, but after readinghis last comment, where he seems to claim we'll damage public trust in Wikipedia by not letting him edit on the topic, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unban. Just wow:I cannot accept being told I am not allowed to work on this subject...If it is blocked here, I will always note on my user pages that the ban in en:WP feels like censorship. I will also try to find other solutions to be allowed to speak... A ban on me may not prevent the subject from appearing sooner or later — it can only prevent that I take part in the discussion. I don't see how this person's attitude aligns with Wikipedia's policies and polity.--jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇00:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oppose unban in its entiretyThis says it all:I cannot accept being told I am not allowed to work on this subject. This is the reason I came to en:WP, and I want to continue to translate this article into other language versions (French, Italian,...). If it is blocked here, I will always note on my user pages that the ban in en:WP feels like censorship.,If en:WP is not prepared to allow critical discussion of certain topics, it may have a clear effect on how the project is perceived from outside. In the end, it may be the en:WP community that is questioned for this decision.,andI will also publish the article in other languages step by step, so that all major Wikipedias will eventually cover this topic. If readers are then told that such an article cannot exist on the English Wikipedia because of a ban related to conflicts about Freemasonry more than a year ago, it will naturally raise questions and may reflect poorly on Wikipedia. makes it very clear that this is a user who isnot here to help build an encyclopedia. They have no interest in editing topics other than their pet hobbyhorse, andspeaking frankly if they were to be unbanned with a topic ban I can't help but have a feeling they wouldtry to build a good reputation, get the topic ban lifted, and immediately push that POV. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any unban. I just don't see any indication that this person actually wants to edit constructively on other topics. At best, I think we'd get the situation Bushranger described, but I don't even think they'd get that far given their comments. ♠PMC♠(talk)00:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been erroneously labeled a sockpuppet ofWP:WIKINGER on the said page. This stems from the aforementioned LTA creating sockpuppets with names similar to mine as trolling. I cannot edit the page due to insufficient permissions, this is important as I do not want to be labeled as a LTA. As you can see in my edit history, I am a genuine editor with significant activity (over 7000 edits) on Polish Wikipedia and engaged in reporting LTA sockpuppets.Jeż0216 (talk)17:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you considered making an attempt to articulate what actually is wrong with the IP edits? It doesn't seem that you've done that either here or at AIV.128.164.177.55 (talk)13:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I came here to request an independent assessment by an Administrator. I expect you've looked at the examples, given by other editors, in the warning templates they have placed on the IP's Talk page. I would have thought that edits such asthis one would be pretty self explanatory. Furthermore, in the meantime, I see thatUser: Criticize seems to have rolled back the majority of the IP's edits. But if everyone else thinks there is no problem with edits like this, and no further action is required, I don't intend to waste any more of anyone's time on this.Martinevans123 (talk)14:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I guess that's a "no" then. Let me suggest that, in the future, if you want someone to do something about a problem, it is helpful if you explain what the problem is instead of expecting people to agree with your unarticulated views. Lots of people know nothing about Jimmy Saville and whether his sexual abuse scandal would merit categories likeCategory:Royal scandals in the United Kingdom andCategory:Margaret Thatcher; two or three sentences of context and explanation would vastly increase the clarity and potential audience of your message.128.164.177.55 (talk)14:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I glanced at a few edits — addingCategory:Jimmy Savile to articles about shows and events in which he participated — and I'm tempted to agree with the IP's action. The only potential ground for disagreeing with them, in my mind, is whether his involvement were significant enough to warrant the category; it's definitely not a matter of vandalism.Nyttend (talk)20:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I didn't look at those ones; my comment was limited to the ones I glanced at, which were shows and events in which Savile participated. Putting the Thatcher template on the Savile scandal article goes against the idea (sorry, no link; I can't find it) that you shouldn't generally put navboxes on pages that aren't linked by the navbox, but such an edit isn't vandalism if nothing else happens.Nyttend (talk)22:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
It may well be misuse of categories, and a navbox on a page that it does not link to is inappropriate, but neither of these are vandalism, as they are both plausible good-faith contributions. Please seeWP:NOTVAND. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
On the basis of the Admin advice above, I have now removed the level 4 warning for vandalism that I posted to the IP's Talk page. It seems that all of the warnings have had completely no effect anyway.Martinevans123 (talk)16:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The user shows no interest in heeding the warnings given to them, has not responded in any way, nor even left any comments in their edit summaries, and is therefore clearly being disruptive.Xexerss (talk)15:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I have concerns over this recent edit[44]. They added categories for a manga/anime and an internet meme to a short article about food - neither are mentioned at all in the article itself and I fail to see the connection.
Yes, I'm the same person, sometimes I edit from one place and sometimes I edit from another. Shocking, that! Meanwhile, your astonishingly thin skin and complete lack of concern about generating a positive outcome (to the extent of actively driving the thread off-topic when someone else tries to do what you should have done in the first place) are a wonderful source of entertainment, so thanks for that!173.79.19.248 (talk)00:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
This venue seems to be a great source of entertainment for you. The contents of your Talk pages are enlightening. I wonder how many other IP addresses you might use, just to keep yourself entertained.Martinevans123 (talk)08:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Still 100% committed to undermining any attempt by anyone to actually make anything happen. Plus baseless aspersions, I see! And some incoherent attempts at wit, I guess not surprising.173.79.19.248 (talk)11:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Likely personally. My general note above still stands as a point of caution.
Not done You've provided no reason to believe it's necessary and there have only been six edits to that article in the past week.WP:AIV is probably a better place if you spot ongoing vandalism. --Yamla (talk)21:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
![[28]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fMilitary_Trophy_Park_(Baku)%23%2fmedia%2fFile%3a%25C4%25B0lham_%25C6%258Fliyev_Bak%25C4%25B1da_H%25C9%2599rbi_Q%25C9%2599nim%25C9%2599tl%25C9%2599r_Park%25C4%25B1n%25C4%25B1n_a%25C3%25A7%25C4%25B1l%25C4%25B1%25C5%259F%25C4%25B1nda_(69).jpg){kind=link}
Bumping thread for 14 days. Until closed. --Super Goku V (talk)11:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)_male_Montagne_d%2019Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%25E2%2580%2599Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%25E2%2580%2599Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%25E2%2580%2599Ambre_2.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%25E2%2580%2599Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%25E2%2580%2599Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%25E2%2580%2599Ambre_2.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dwatch){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%2019Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
.) I'll see if I can sort this out myself, but if any admin knows this topic area well, thoughts/intervention still welcome. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)15:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)