Archives

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25

This page has archives. Topics inactive for14 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than3.

Hello, this user has resumed their exact same disruptive editing as soon as the P-block you gave them expired.[1][2] —Czello^(music)07:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And another —Czello^(music)10:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello Reinstated p-blockEvergreenFir(talk)17:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atWikipedia talk:General disclaimer on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk)23:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of those LTA impersonator accounts. Much appreciated!JeffSpaceman (talk)16:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!EvergreenFir(talk)16:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see[3]: likely forgery of sources by User:TeaToasst.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk)08:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recentmotion, a rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor'sArab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). Theconfirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automaticallycheck your eligibility to vote.

Hello, ive noticed that you closed a Talk between 2 users inKilling of Iryna Zarutska and reason was because you though that both of the users were Nazis and Trollers? I think you are abusing your power.~2026-88300-0 (talk)13:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just noticed that other user blamed them for being a Nazi, you however blamed them for being a troll and banned them.~2026-88300-0 (talk)13:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Misfits Boxing on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs)13:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just reverted his removal of the tag because he refuses to generate consensus. I am using the talk page and not reverting content now. Literally working on consensus building. i did add the tag.Psephguru (talk)16:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Psephguru You're edit warring. If you continue, you will be blocked. Go use the talk page to discuss things.EvergreenFir(talk)17:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me inDiff/1337876108, I had misread your earlier edit. I've self-reverted a later incorrect correction that I had made.--Gurkubondinn (talk)23:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn No worries! I figured it was a misreading of the diff. I've done it many times myselfEvergreenFir(talk)23:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same, still surprised at how often it happens to me.--Gurkubondinn (talk)23:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(re-using thread for convenience) HeyEvergreenFir, shouldn'tDiff/1337921823 be revdel'd as well (since it contains the body of the offending section)?--Gurkubondinn (talk)05:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, you deleted it while I was writing this. Thanks for doing this.--Gurkubondinn (talk)05:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn No prob! Thanks for your diligenceEvergreenFir(talk)05:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(re-using this thread for convenience again) ShouldDiff/1337979636 andDiff/1337979903 also be revdel'd? DefiniteWP:NOTHERE behaviour, but less egregiously bad than the other ones.--Gurkubondinn (talk)15:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

doneEvergreenFir(talk)16:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, it's still accessible in thePermalink/1337979903 revision, and in the changset for theDiff/1337980201 edit that removed it from the page.--Gurkubondinn (talk)16:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or in other words,I think that the revisionsDiff/1337979903 (the TA adding a reply) andDiff/1337980201 (both TA edits reverted) also need to be revdel'd to remove this from the public history of the page.--Gurkubondinn (talk)16:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EvergreenFir, can you revertthis edit perWP:BLP which saysContentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion andThe burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. It's been contested twice on the talk page as inaccurate and as adog whistle toward the race of the defendants listed on the page.~2026-32437-2 (talk)05:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward no. It's an accurate statement and summarizes a portion of the article perWP:LEAD. The race, ethnicity, and immigration status of the defendants are indeed why the Trump administration is targeting them. If another admin thinks it should be removed, I won't contest it.EvergreenFir(talk)05:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir It's not accurate though and some of the sources to support it in the body are biased opinion pieces. Some editors want it in the lead as UNDUE weight as a way to associate race with crime.

Can you self-revert onWP:BLP grounds? It's been contested so perWP:BLP policy it shouldn't be re-added until consensus is affirmed on the talk page to have it there. Thanks~2026-32437-2 (talk)06:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it should be removed until we have a consensus.Assorted-Interests (talk)17:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Assorted-Interests and @~2026-32437-2 - the content was addedDecember 6 and remained unchallenged until ~2026-32437-2 removed it on January 28 for the first time. That same dayToBeFree semi-protected the article. It was then edit warred over the following 14 days.

The comment itself is not a BLP violation and is factually accurate. Further, it adheres toWP:LEAD and is stated in a neutral tone. There is no reason to remove it other than certain editors' preference. If you want to assess consensus, use the talk page. If edit warring continues after the full protection expires, I will block people.EvergreenFir(talk)04:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Please do, without asking me, especially in cases where such a block was already placed by me and then taken back in the hope that it wouldn't continue. Most of the participants had already received a block for edit warring when the protection came, and that was too early from me. If it really continues after the full protection, please restore my blocks on those who continue.)~ ToBeFree (talk)15:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree I didn't realize you'd unblocked! Thank you for the info and permission.EvergreenFir(talk)17:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Assorted-Interests, I find it frustrating that you have shown up here to argue for this sentence's removal instead of contributing to the article's talk page, which you have never edited. Discussion is how we reach consensus on Wikipedia. —Ganesha811 (talk)17:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Shenyang on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

(replacingYapperbot)SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs)13:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way around this?~2026-97099-0 (talk)00:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-97099-0 do you mean links in the references of an article?EvergreenFir(talk)04:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I, preferably, would rather not have my talk page protected for a number of reasons Ican't say publicly. Given that no revdels occurred (which is the typical reason that an admin has wanted to protect my talk page), is it possible to get it unprotected, or at least, not protected for an entire week. I personally could not care less about the LTAs, but if it is causing too much disruption for others, then yeah, makes sense to protect the page, but I just wanted to both see about getting a reduction in time and maybe get some reasoning for future reference. Cheers!–LuniZunie_(talk)03:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LuniZunie sure I can remove it. I had seen the majority of the most recent edits were harassment so I protected it. But it's your talk page :)EvergreenFir(talk)03:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just for info... I opened an SPI regarding this editor, and specifically a new account that was conveniently created just after the most recent reversion.Danners430_{tweaks made}20:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the hypothetical flawless sysop made the exact perfect call in every situation they'd still be guaranteed to deal with a calvacade of complaints when emotions run high. We need more sysops involved in tense areas not less. I'm grateful your taking so much of your own precious time to help out. Keep at it, and don't let the naysayers get you down.~2025-41540-19 (talk)23:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]