Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Cunard

{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}

{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}

{{Clear}}

{{Admin tasks}}

__TOC__

{{archive top|I have unblocked Scerri per the consensus here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I’m submitting this request on behalf of Dr. Eric Scerri User:Scerri, whose account has been blocked since 2008, on the following grounds: "Spam / advertising-only account".

He is a widely recognized authority in the history and philosophy of chemistry and the periodic table.

He made 13 edits in 2005; 12 in 2006; and 21 in 2008. These edits were to correct his own biographical details; add resources, external links, and references to his own work; some typo fixes; and the deletion of some new age content in the History of the Periodic Table article.

He recently submitted an unblock request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scerri but, not being sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia unblock procedure, his request was denied on procedural grounds.

A subsequent unblock request posted by him to his talk page failed to gain traction.

I posted another unblock request on behalf of User: Scerri to the same talk page, including some history and discussion of Dr Scerri’s circumstances, and WP policy. This request attracted some interest, including a suggestion for an admin to weigh in. On March 30th 2025, {{ping|DMacks}} indicated he would consider an unblock if it included a restriction against self-citing without prior discussion in which Scerri participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned. I've heard no further from DMacks.

Dr Scerri is happy to accept the restrictions proposed by DMacks i.e. no self-citing without prior discussion in which they participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this unblock request.

Conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a [https://dailybruin.com/2019/04/12/as-sesquicentennial-occurs-debate-on-arrangement-of-periodic-table-continues/ debate on the periodic table], with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:IMO any unblock should also require that they only use the talk page to propose changes to their bio on the talk page via edit requests etc rather than directly editing it whatever they are citing. Maybe also to Foundations of Chemistry. WP:BANEX would apply of course. While I'm a strong believer that COI doesn't forbid editing in the general case, once an editor has shown they don't know when their COI edits are okay and when they aren't, things change a bit. While it does seem that the main concern with Scerri's editing is their tendency to add citations to their own work, it just doesn't seem a good idea to say general editing of their bio is okay when an editor has trouble recognising COI problems. Also I'm slightly concerned as worded the proposal seems to suggest that if Scerri is told on RSN that a source they are citing is reliable, they're going to think they can then use it all over even when they are just adding it to stuff already supported by citations. But I guess most RSN discussions of specific sources do make clear context matters and more importantly provided Scerri always makes clear what and why they are asking, this probably shouldn't be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ditto what {{u|Nil Einne}} said. Restrictions are required for me to support, along the lines that Nil Einne already laid out. I would further suggest he should be able to appeal the restrictions here after ~500 edits or 1 year, whichever comes last. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Scerri needs to say in their own words and from their own account that they agree to the terms. While you may advise them, Sandbh, and that is truly helpful, you cannot speak entirely on their behalf as we don't know whether they in fact agree. While i'm not yet sure how I feel about unblocking at all, I think any successful unblock would need to be contingent on them avoiding self citing but also using edit requests in areas where they have a vested interest. I'd be curious to hear from the editor why they all of a sudden want to edit again after 17 years. Star Mississippi 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

: Comment. In reviewing this unblock request, the following logged-out statement by User:Scerri, recently made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scerri&diff=prev&oldid=1282565974 here] on their Talk page, should be considered: {{tq| I recognize the general preference for using talk pages or formal edit requests in autobiographical articles, but I must be candid: given my professional commitments, I simply do not have the time to engage in back-and-forths on talk pages or through formal edit request channels.}} JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::This was my main reason for declining their request. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Dennis Brown|Star Mississippi|JoJo Anthrax|331dot}} Thank you for your comments. I will ask Dr Scerri if he could post here, and say in his own words and from his own account that he agrees to the unblock terms, plus anything else he would like to add. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:He's blocked, so he can't post here, but he can post on his user talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I'll ask him to post on his user talk page, and will let editors here know when he has done that. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Having not heard anymore from Dr Scerri, I've just now emailed him to ascertain his position. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've heard from Dr Scerri, and he intends to post to the User: Scerri talk page. I'll post an alert here. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Dr Scerri has posted his unblock request to his talk page. Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tpq|q=y|[...] while I have occasionally made factual updates via IP edits over the years — mainly to keep my publication details current [...]}} My reading of this is edits made post-2008. If so, I don't think Scerri realized that they were evading their block by making edits as an IP user. Assuming my assumption is correct, a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable. (Hopefully I am misunderstanding the situation.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I also read this as (non-malicious) block evading. Overall this seems like someone that wants to make good faith contributions to the community. {{xt|a one account restriction with an agreement to forgo IP editing might be advisable}} - agree. It also seems like Scerri is interested in writing an encyclopedia but not really in learning about our community norms. With that in mind I would like to see that his account is restricted though I do not have the experience to suggest the best restrictions. Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::A one account restriction is unnecessary. It is not an absolute requirement and here it is obviously not going to change anything. —Alalch E. 23:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would support based on their answer Sandbh linked above. They answer the questions I raised to my satisfaction and in their own voice. Star Mississippi 23:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :+1 —Alalch E. 10:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. A brief personal reflection, if I may. I’ve occasionally made Wikipedia edits as an IP editor—typically while using a public computer (such as at my local Apple store), when I’ve spotted a mistake on a page and didn’t want to log in for account security reasons. There have also been times when I’ve made trivial corrections, such as fixing typos or formatting, without bothering to log in.

These kinds of edits strike me as practical, harmless, and entirely within the norms of good-faith contribution. I mention this to emphasize that IP editing isn’t inherently suspicious or evasive—context matters.

As for the unblock request: I think WP:ROPE is worth bearing in mind. The principle is that if an editor has been blocked but is willing to return in good faith, we don’t need to burden them with excessive preconditions. If issues arise again, the community has ample tools to respond. But if no problems occur, then we’ve welcomed back a constructive contributor—which is what we want.

Dr Scerri has acknowledged past issues, stated a willingness to work within Wikipedia’s norms, and clarified his intent to use the talk page and edit request systems for any COI-related material. That seems sufficient. Adding a restriction like “no IP editing” could be seen as both unnecessary and overreaching, especially given that such behavior is already subject to routine scrutiny like it is for any editor.

Noting my own COI (set out below), I support the proposed unblock as is.

My conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a [https://dailybruin.com/2019/04/12/as-sesquicentennial-occurs-debate-on-arrangement-of-periodic-table-continues/ debate on the periodic table], with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I hadn't seen this WP:ROPE I think that holds good sway here. As for the IP editing. I have also done what you described but doing it specifically because you actual account is blocked is a another matter. Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the considered response.

::I agree entirely that IP editing to bypass a block is a different matter entirely—one that rightly raises serious concern. My intent in mentioning IP editing was not to excuse evasion, but to suggest that occasional IP edits, post-unblock and with no evasive intent, may not need to be preemptively restricted. If problematic patterns were to emerge, we already have mechanisms to deal with that, hence the relevance of WP:ROPE.

::My broader point was that we shouldn’t presume all IP edits are suspect—particularly if they’re isolated, minor, and in good faith. Of course, if Dr Scerri were unblocked and later engaged in problematic IP editing, I would fully support appropriate action. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I am probably not the only editor who has added that page to their Watchlist, so perhaps you could tell the Doctor that IP edits to that page are unlikely to be missed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, JoJo Anthrax. That’s a fair and helpful point—and I trust Dr Scerri will appreciate the level of attention and the importance of maintaining full transparency going forward. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock as per 'Star Mississippi'. User:Scerri was blocked in 2008 it's been seventeen years such a long period. I think with a second chance, we can allow him to demonstrate his ability to edit constructively. IAmAtHome (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I think 17 years is enough time to learn a lesson and come back in good faith. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unconditionally, and I feel that any block that's more than ten years old should be automatically rescinded.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unconditionally, and immediately. Christ, seventeen years and he actually went through all this pain to ask for an official unblock? Isn't this supposed to be what we want people to do? We should encourage them to do it, not punish them. jp×g🗯️ 05:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

This is currently pending at MFD and is both a content issue and a conduct issue. User:Mauriziok has apparently created approximately 300 user space articles that are copies from article space to user space, which is not permitted.

• {{Userlinks|Mauriziok}}

Mauriziok was asked about these copies nine months ago by User:Bri but did not answer. Bri has now nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300 pageant drafts in userspace .

The content issue will be taken care of at MFD, but the creation of these copies is an attribution violation, and is otherwise not permitted.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• I accidentally filed this at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI and have changed the notices to indicate that it was filed at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that Mauriziok be topic-banned from creating subpages in user space.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I was wondering if something like this was appropriate, too. I'm glad that RM took the initiative. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Very strange behaviour. They've recently blanked a handful, so I've U1'd. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support They had promised not to do this again. See User talk:Mauriziok#Copying within Wikipedia%2C and Userspace content forks and User talk:Mauriziok#Userspace content forks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: this can not be technically enforced, if this ban is enacted and gets violated such that it needs enforcing, the options will be to block the user from the entire User: namespace, or siteblock them. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Thank you for the details, User:Xaosflux - If the ban is violated, I will be satisfied with blocking the editor from User space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Mauriziok is slowly getting it and has tagged 100+ pages for U1. Hundreds more need to be deleted. I'm interested in a resolution to this that does not require a topic ban. See the discussion in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/300 pageant drafts in userspace. If the needed responses aren't given in the following few days, I will support a topic ban. —Alalch E. 13:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Of the 218 biographies that were listed by Bri, I counted 22 that have become red links. That means that approximately 193 of them are still there. Also, Mauriziok has written, in response to my Delete All vote at MFD, {{tq|Not all the drafts should be removed. I'm voluntarily removing all inactive drafts, as well as templates and bios.}} This appears to be a case of I Didn't Hear That. They haven't explained what sort of activity calls for keeping hundreds of drafts that are somewhere between active and inactive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::After a few days, I don't think that a satisfactory resolution is going to be reached without some action. —Alalch E. 23:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Hi, @Alalch E. Excuse me, I was checking the page https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Mauriziok/2 to see if I could check the latest version of each of the workshops, but for example, the link in the title of each one takes me to the deleted workshop, and I can't see anything there. In the case of the date, it gives me a permission error, indicating that "you do not have permission to view metadata of deleted history entries, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers." So, the only thing I can see through that XTools link is the list of workshop names. I'd like to know how I can access the workshops I was editing. I mentioned earlier that I was working on workshops for Miss Venezuela, Mr. Handsome Venezuela, Miss & Mr. Tourism Venezuela, Mr. Universe Venezuela, Miss & Mr. Sports Venezuela, and Gentleman Venezuela; but they were also deleted. The goal would be to publish them once I finish improving the workshops and then be able to permanently delete them appropriately.  For my part, I've been gradually eliminating workshops, eventually eliminating more than 200. Yesterday, I decided to continue eliminating more workshops in an orderly manner, but suddenly, practically all of them were eliminated. I had indicated that it would take me about a week to eliminate 300 workshops, but seeing that the number was three or four times bigger, the time required would be longer. If you could please tell me how I should proceed in this case. Thank you. Mauriziok (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This is confusing. Are you asking for undeletion to userspace, in the midst of a discussion of a userspace restriction? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Bri I'm asking that only the workshops I was recently working on be reinstated, not the ones I've already finished working on or the ones I was never able to, which is the vast majority. In the case of the workshops I'm asking to be reinstated, they don't need to be reactivated all at once; they can be done beauty pageant by beauty pageant, once I've improved the series enough to be published in the articles, with the workshops properly removed. Mauriziok (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That's right, you get a handy list of all your user drafts which you worked on, and, of course, you can not see deleted content. The deletion of the pages did not destroy the record of what you were actively working on, what you were working on in the past, and what you intended to work on but never got to it, and you can reference this list and request undeletion on a per-page basis, but it is not appropriate to request undeletion of whole series of pages. Try asking for one to be undeleted, then work on it (if it's really needed for you to improve the article), incorporate the changes into the live article, and request deletion. But in the future, please try to implement the changes directly in articles as opposed to creating copies and syncing the live article with your userspace copy. While I understand that the way you have been doing it feels natural to you, you were definitely on the extreme end of relying on this style of editing, and have significantly overstretched the bounds of reasonableness. After the MfD was started, you were showing signs that you are dealing with the problem but you were slow relative to the tempo of the MfD, with its standard duration of 7 days; you did not set an alternative schedule, and you were not sufficiently responsive. Even if you are topic banned per this discussion, I will support lifting the restriction once you can explain how the problem will not reoccur. I might also change my recommendation here to opposing a topic ban before the discussion is closed.{{pb}}Separately, you are not using edit summaries very much. When you bring the changes over from the copy, enter a suitable edit summary describing the resulting changes. Please see Help:Edit summary. —Alalch E. 15:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thank you @Alalch E. How can I request a recovery of a draft? Mauriziok (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::You can ask the admin who deleted the page or at WP:REFUND. An admin responding at REFUND technically probably shouldn't accept, but... @BD2412 What do you think about undeletion on a per-page basis when the page is one of the hundreds of user's drafts deleted via a mass-MfD because of WP:COPIES? Presumably the editor would like to resume what they were working or intending to work on, incorporate the changes into the live article, and tag with U1. —Alalch E. 02:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::: If you mean undeletion through the WP:RFU process, that would be unavailable for pages deleted through an XFD, as these were. In theory, you would have to ask the deleting administrator on a page-by-page basis. Of course, this discussion could result in a consensus that modifies that general rule for this set of articles. BD2412 T 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::@Alalch E. So the only way that exists at the moment is to ask the administrator who deleted the page? Mauriziok (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::If you want a page undeleted and you're not an admin, you need to ask an admin to undelete it, and the first instance in such cases is to go to the deleting admin. For a potential other option read BD2412's reply above yours. —Alalch E. 05:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon.—Alalch E. 23:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that Mauriziok has not edited since 30 April. Since non-admins cannot see deleted edits, we can't see if they nominated any articles for speedy deletion that have now been deleted. But they haven't made any comments at the MFD, or here, and they haven't made any edits to articles that still exist (e.g, are still tagged for U1). So there are still about 195 biographies nominated in the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:*I think the biographies and their talkpages have been deleted per the biographies list that I made, all redlinks now. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon Until now, I didn't know how to discard drafts, so I had to organize them quickly because of the amount. I request that I continue editing the drafts, with the understanding that once I improve a few, I'll incorporate the deletion request to prevent them from accumulating, so I can continue editing others. Thank you. Mauriziok (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::You still have not shown that you are able to organize your userspace. Pages blanked by you but not tagged U1 for starters, even though this was brought to your attention in this AN case days ago. I do not support continuing on this path. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Should remaining, blanked userspace pages listed here be tagged G7 speedy delete? Is it proper for me to do this? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:G7 does not apply to blanked pages by the user in user space. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, is it U1? I'm not sure ... maybe I just should stay away from this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A blanked(-by-the-user) user page is generally, IIRC, considered a de facto U1 request by the user, provided the page otherwise qualifies for U1 (i.e. it isn't a userified article). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No. People blanking pages in their userspace is not a request to delete them, they may like to have blank user page or empty a sandbox page before returning to it later or... Userspace pages should be deleted upon explicit request, but not because of blanking. Fram (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Noticed a suspicious edit by an admin account that had previously been dormant for a significant time.

The account belonging to the admin Night Gyr appears to have vandalized an article about Mormons, removing information showing that the Mormon leadership had opposed a massacre of emigrants passing through their territory, and had specifically sent orders to allow the victims to pass unharmed.

The new state of the article makes it appear as if the killings were a direct action of the Mormon church, when in fact the leadership had opposed violence and sided with the victims against the militia.

What makes this behavior suspicious is that Night Gyr has no previous posts on these subjects, and no posts about religious topics whatsoever except to attempt to remove pages about Hindu history.

It’s bizarre that their account suddenly became active after an extended absence, specifically to vandalize this article, and no other actions.

Would someone please contact them to verify the security of their account, or to discuss why they so felt the need to return to vandalize the page and then disappear again?

Thanks 2600:1011:B178:5D32:B4B9:80F2:26D8:DBC9 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Your edits were likely reverted because you added information based on primary sources, which are not reliable for the purposes you are using them for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's neither suspicious nor vandalism, and involved no use of administrative tools. An edit summary would have been helpful from Night Gyr, though. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}}You made an edit based on primary, possibly biased, sources. Night Gyr reverted that edit. That's not anything suspicious unless you're here to push a POV. Also note this is not vandalism; note that calling things that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not dormant, just editing less than I used to. Acroterion is correct that I could have done better to provide an edit summary. Interesting here that an IP address is responding to the removal of content added by another IP address. Have you considered registering an account and getting to know the way things are done here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Night Gyr}} Welcome back comrade. jp×g🗯️ 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|result=There's no problem with a closure review here, but it would be better with an opening statement written by a human. I note that Itshrabkhan's contribution to the original RfC was also AI-generated. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Itshrabkhan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

:The AI has done a fantastic job writing a report here, {{u|Itshrabkhan}}. Would you like to have a go doing it yourself now? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm happy to hear others' opinions on this closure. This close was previously discussed on my talk page here. Personally, I am not actually certain that this request was written by AI, it seems like a more formal extension of this editor's style. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Ganesha811}} Happy to be disproven, but I put the text through several different detectors, all of which came back at 100%. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair enough! In any case I'm sure Itshrabkhan can rephrase and reformat it as necessary to relaunch a discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: I once got an 80% certainty rating of AI authorship for an essay I wrote 15 years ago. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is actually AI-generated content and I don't see any problem with that unless I'm missing something, and I'm happy to know why. Nevertheless, I'll recreate the opening statement. Itshrabkhan (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not withstanding the AI, I'm concerned about the exhibit of WP:PREC and WP:SPA behaviour. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Adding a null comment here so this doesn't get archived again. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{RfC closure review links|1=Qaboos_bin_Said|rfc_close_page=Talk:Qaboos_bin_Said#RfC on sexuality}} (Discussion with closer)

Closer: {{userlinks|Ganesha811}}

User requesting review: {{userlinks|Itshrabkhan‬}}

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ganesha811#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

Reasoning: This is a request to review the consensus of the RFC in Sultan Qaboos bin Said's talk page. An RFC of whether to include rumours about Qaboos sexuality in the article. I believe that the outcome of the RFC needs a review because it was a single mind consensus whereas it should be how the voting ended.

The exclusion was based on a solid arguments and wiki-policies. For instance, sources stated that “Qaboos was widely believed by Omanis and Gulf Arabs to be homosexual” where in fact believed by only (3) Omanis and by saying “everyone knows about that” as the same sources stated, claims are claims and amount nothing than gossips or rumours.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to include allegations unless there are sources stating facts rather than just claims, and that this is an issue of any significance in the country which I don’t think it is. It is essentially dishonest to act as asserting the existence of rumour is somehow distinct from asserting the truth of that rumour.

In sources context, one of the sources quotes from a source that has been previously removed as unreliable, other is based solely on claims from only three individuals, which doesn’t meet WP:RS or WP:UNDUE, another one is explicitly states that these are rumours, and the last one appears to recycle the same claims from these sources.

• Endorse: I don't think I would have dared to close this either way myself, but do I think the closure is correct, and the closure statement furthermore provides useful guidance on what and how should or shouldn't be included in the article. (FWIW, I thought cagliost made a particularly persuasive argument, and also refuted many of the opposing points, which largely clinched it for me.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn – in my view, this closure seemed like a supervote that didn't seriously consider any of the exclude arguments, because there was in fact reasonable refutations of those who supported inclusion. It is generally considered not okay to out someone as supposedly gay, or even hint at it, regardless of whether they are living or deceased; especially when the sources explicitly state it is rumors and speculation. This practice is widely seen as disrespectful, and Wikipedia has always seen this practice as disrespectful. This argument was not reasonably refuted, and furthermore, it was stated that, {{tq|Many of the contributors to this RFC and the previous ones are motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry}}. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I took offense at that remark, and I can assure you my exclude argument was not the least bit "anti-homosexual bigotry". That comment alone should have disqualified their !vote. The closer cites WP:NOTCENSORED as being a relevant factor, but doesn't explain how it is relevant. No one that argued for exclusion said the content should be censored, so NOTCENSORED is a very weak argument for inclusion, because the inclusion of disputed content isn't primarily based on NOTCENSORED, and those arguments citing NOTCENSORED should have been given less weight. The closer also cites source reliability as being relevant, but seemingly ignores Pincretes accurate analysis of the sources. The most reliable way for Wikipedia to report someone’s sexual orientation is in their own words, and we don't have that here, and someone else’s purported sexuality is not owed to the public, nor is it encyclopedic, when it is based on rumors, gossip and speculation. Both the 2017 and 2020 discussions got it right to exclude, and this one also got it right to exclude, based on the arguments for exclusion, and the numerical advantage, if consensus had been determined properly. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The opinion of prior participants in general is often useless for discussions like this one anyway, but here goes. The previous RfCs were largely based on BLP grounds, but the subject died in 2020, so that no longer applies, and using the consensus of these previous RfCs as if they should influence this 2025 one is grasping at straws. The rumours about his sexual life have been discussed in reputable sources since at least 2004[https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/meria/meria_sept04/meria04_kam01.pdf] and indicate the political implications. This is not some idle celebrity gossip and not based on one source or one person, but a persistent claim (which should thus not be presented as a truth, but as a claim) which influenced or indicated the image the Sultan of Oman had with (parts of) his population, on a highly contentious topic in his country. The opposition was mainly based on "but they are only rumours", which no one denied, but isn't a reason to exclude things. See e.g. Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby, William McMahon or Jörg Haider, or the featured article Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Fram (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :When I asked what the "political implications" were, no one could describe them, apparently those were unfounded rumors as well, considering he ruled for thirty years. And yes, this is some idle celebrity gossip that had no significant impact on his life, and there is no context provided at all in the article how it influenced or tarnished his image with the population. And since you invoked other stuff, there is an ongoing RfC at Mustafa Kemal Atatürk about persistent rumors about an alleged affair he had, which is leaning towards exclusion. I guess it just depends on what the rumors and gossips are, i.e. someones purported sexual orientation, and whether that gossip is suitable for inclusion. BLP states: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, but when it's a BDP, we suddenly abandon those standards in favor of spreading titillating and unfounded claims about a deceased person. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• As mentioned, I've discussed this with a couple other editors at my talk page here in some detail, but am happy to answer any specific questions about this close. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :* It would be great to get an opinion from an editor who was not previously involved in the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|My last time trying to run interference for you, ToadetteEdit. Taking a risk that this is supervote-y, and nipping this in the bud before calls for your indef block grow. If you read the room, you've pretty much used up the last ounce of patience of many people here. See the 3+ editors below who think you should be indef'd right now. If I'm being honest, you could look at that as a consensus. At the very least, they are not crazy or outliers. Next time you come to AN/ANI with something unnecessary and "look at me"-ish like this, I can guarantee you will be indef'd. I may do it myself. The consensus here seems to be clear: if you don't want to use those exceptions, don't use those exceptions. But the community is absolutely done talking about your topic ban, and rather than modify it, the next step is to remove you from WP. I don't know how to make this more clear. Stop. Do not make a post like this again. Stay in article space. Your goal should be to let everyone at AN/ANI forget you even exist, except maybe as that guy who quietly edits articles and avoids drama. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I would like to have some of my topic ban exemptions removed, in order to recover from the ANI flu after reading the endless discussions in the last few years.

Here are my conditions:

1. The standard exceptions to bans. Remove this.
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process. Remove this as well.
3. Deletion discussions or deletion reviews. Only limit this to XfDs only.
4. Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA. I might need this just in case, but this should be marked as uncontroversial; controversial requests is banned.
5. The last one should also be removed, since I will maintain to be a neutral party, and I want to keep community interaction minimal.

To be honest, applying for an unblock was a bad choice. Instead of expecting a "welcome back" response, I got banned... And I got warnings for using user talk pages to comment about RfAs. And I also lack the required judgment since I am just a teen and so I am doing so just to focus away from thinking about meta discussions and just focus on improving content, and review a few drafts. I apologize if I have been disruptive. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:For those wondering what the numbered items are referring to and for the rest of the restrictions not mentioned above, here are the unblock conditions from 21 February 2025:

:# An indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: spaces, broadly construed, with the following exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed:

:## The standard exceptions to bans.

:## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process.

:## Deletion discussions or deletion reviews.

:## Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA.

:## Participating in, but not starting, a discussion where they are directly involved in a discrete and preexisting dispute (e.g., an editing conflict that is brought to WP:RSN), or are a named party to a dispute (e.g., at WP:DRN).

:# An indefinite topic ban from requesting additional permissions, broadly construed, regardless of namespace.

::For the avoidance of doubt, this conditional unblock does not affect ToadetteEdit's current topic ban from closing discussions (in any namespace).

::These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed.

:— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Note to others, as I initially misread this request. This is not a ban appeal. @ToadetteEdit is requesting to increase the restrictions by removing some of the exceptions to the ban from the namespaces Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Would you be willing to consider this a voluntary editing restriction on top of your TBAN? Responses:

:# I don't think it's prudent to remove the standard exceptions.

:# Fine.

:# Fine.

:# I don't think it's workable to distinguish between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" reports. I'd be fine either eliminating this exception or keeping it. Up to you.

:# I don't think we can remove this. If you make an edit that someone contests, you have to be able to respond.

:{{pb}}You didn't get a warm {{tq|welcome back}} because of the extent of your disruption and the wariness editors had about unblocking you. I'm glad you're now recognizing the harm you've done and want to avoid doing further harm. I hope you can continue to be productive and eventually regain the trust of the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, this should be a voluntary request for a restriction, so that I could be able to learn how to focus on content work and not focus on the meta discussions. I admit that I had been disruptive in the past, as evidenced by the block from ANI two years ago. And so I didn't see a "welcome back" message but a restriction that I did not expect. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Meh. Why ask for an increase in restrictions, when you can just try to.. not? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::The reason is that some of the restirctions reslly do not have any benefit for me. Like I would not make use of the advantages. As said in the previous failed request, some users proposed removing the exceptions, which were too broad, and so I wish to have some of my exceptions removed, with the most important exceptions remain. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|ToadetteEdit}}, don't waste our time. If you don't want to edit in those areas then just don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am not honestly not wasting any time; I apologize if I did so. I just want to have some exceptions removed as useless. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If you are not going to use those exceptions, then just don't use them. Why do you need multiple admins to comment on this thread for something that you yourself can manage? You are already restricted more than the average editor, so there's no principle of least privilege at play. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And if you can't remain constructive with those exceptions, to me that says you need to be indeffed, and we shouldn't simply take these exceptions away from you as a response. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I tend to agree with this position. So far we've sadly seen lots of talk from this user, followed by potential (or actual) violations of the block and a series of ill-advised actions. The best course of action in my view is to actually PROVE you can function productively in the Wikipedia environment without the need for topic bans and the like. If you can't do that...indeff might be the only way forward. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am actually proving myself that I can overcome the ban through regular editing and content creation. Unfortunately, since I am on mobile and there is not enough time, I could not edit that regularly. I am depressed by why I could not attend the backlog drive just because of the ban. My apologies if I am talking too much in the recent months, but I am trying to convince the community to do so. And in regards to the CIR issue below, I am trying my best not to have another indef which will impact my history in the future. For not, I am very stressed about the ban; I currently feel that the community has rejected my help and just want to kick me out of the encyclopedia—which I am making useful contributions on—like trash. As a teen, I do not have a developed brain like the adults here so I often tend to move quickly and that resulted in the ban being implemented. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The thing is you don't seem to wish to learn from your mistakes. You just keep offering excuse after excuse and taking up the community's time with endless requests to modify things you have created through your own behavior. There are many teens on Wikipedia who contribute content, and do so quietly and competently. But you don't seem willing to stick with content creation and instead keep pushing into areas you admit you may not be ready to work with. That causes disruption. Many people have tried to work with you, and frankly you've been shown a great deal of patience and accommodation. Intothatdarkness 11:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would suggest either leaving the topic ban as it is currently in place or turning it into a normal WP:INDEF. It's unfair for volunteer administrators and the community as a whole to have to administer a constantly shifting set of very bespoke restrictions to accommodate one single editor, no matter who they are. If exceptions are added and removed like they're Lego bricks, they'll just be another discussion like this every few weeks. The current topic ban, as currently constructed should be considered the WP:LASTCHANCE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:In my experience as a former teenager with impulse problems, I don't feel like what you're suggesting will help, honestly. You don't need to use the exceptions even if you have them. Making a personal oath to not use them is easier, less annoying if you do end up needing them, and doesn't provide the same forbidden fruit itch that the restrictions do.
If you don't feel like you need to edit in those ways, you don't need to. Respectfully, showing remorse by requesting a tight leash causes frustration for all parties and doesn't really do much in the ways of positive outcomes. I think showing you can edit constructively even with the exceptions in place would cause less frustration for everyone, and show more capability on your part. -- a lad insane (channel two) 07:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• query can someone please explain why this editor is allowed to be a mentor when they seem to have trouble editing themselves? Thank you 47.180.76.112 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I've wondered this as well. Intothatdarkness 21:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::+2. CIR issues never-ending and I still see no major signs of change (well, other than leaving Meta-Wiki altogether). --SHB2000 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::CIR issues???! How is such issue never ending. Now you claim that I have competency issue while I continue to improve the mainspace. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Note that there is no set rules to become a mentor, let alone the minimum edit count and age. But I doubt whether users who are not in good standing are not allowed for mentorship. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:To be honest, I think this request shows the opposite of what you think it does. Sanctions are lifted when people demonstrate that they can use their judgement and self-awareness to avoid topics or areas they know they're less productive in, and that they no longer need to be restricted by the community. Asking for additional sanctions would indicate to me that you aren't confident you can abide by the restriction; i.e. you aren't sure you can use your judgement—the opposite of what we want for eventually lifting sanctions. If you don't want to edit in those areas, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to have the ability to taken away from you. Giraffer (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = TPA revoked for 31 hrs by {{np|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Long term harassment towards mainly me, but also other no-wiki sysops are targeted.

Constantly changing IP addresses. Please block IP (IP range), delete the harassment @ User talk:2A02:2121:347:9ACE:DDA:E4F7:F230:D6E6 and hide other revisions. Thanks! 1000mm (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello there. Need to revoke TPA. Thanks! –HirowoWiki (📝) 16:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::As said, long term harassment from this kid. Never stops. Long term ban for the constant changing IP/IP range is the only thing that works. 1000mm (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Finally, we're done here. TPA revoked. –HirowoWiki (📝) 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hi all, recently an AfD was started here regarding a Palestinian filmmaker who is tied up with conflict with the Palestinian Authority. It's quite obviously within the Israel / Palestine CTOP but it's attracting a lot of attention from non Extended-Confirmed accounts. I've gone and notified everyone who has commented on the AfD and who did not appear to be aware but I'm wondering if some other notice should be posted on the AfD itself. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:According to WP:PIA#General sanctions upon related content, {{tlx|Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice|2=relatedcontent=yes}} on the talk page and {{tlx|Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice|2=relatedcontent=yes}} in the editnotice, I guess. Either that or just ECP the whole thing if it counts as within the conflict area. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::An ECP of the page is probably wise. It's getting a fair bit of attention from new users and I've already had to do some explaining regarding the CTOP notices I sent out to the non extended-confirmed participants. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:In such cases, are the non-EC users' !votes stricken as they arrive, or do we rely on the closer to spot them and disregard? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd revert them and strike the ones that an extendedconfirmed editor has already responded to. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've struck through the !votes and comments on that AfD by non-ECR editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Rusalkii

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Master Jay

|Orderinchaos

|Roger Davies

|Tinucherian

}}

File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg Interface administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{t|sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop|status=WP:BOOMERANG?|1=OP blocked after a thread on ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.2.164, is being extremely disruptive.

They continuously make edit, claiming something when it’s not true, and then gets upset when edits get reverted.

They’re also attacking me.

They don’t appear to be stopping anytime soon.

If I was in charge, I would block them for disruptive behaviour and edits (but of course I can’t and never will). Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The removal of unsourced biographical information is not disruptive. WP:ALLMUSIC is not considered a good source for birthdates.

:Where was the user attacking you? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::In the revisions of the edits Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you point out which diff? Because I don't really see any edits of the IP suggesting an "attack". This one probably just shows frustration of being reverted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: This subject is currently on both this board and AN/I. Agree there doesn't seem to be any attacks. IP and OP have been reverting a lot, but seem to have stopped. Don't think admin intervention is required at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Dipper Dalmatian has since been given a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dipper_Dalmatian&diff=next&oldid=1289270083 indef for incivility], so we can probably consider this closed (and 122's issue was solved too by someone sourcing what they asked for, even as DD tried to inexplicably shut down discussion of it). Nathannah • 📮 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Closed (premature)

| result = Already handled through other channels. Cabayi (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|Sfaraji}}

Draft:1receipt is recently spamming for draft repeatedly. JustAces (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:What's your interest in this user, especially where your account is less than 2 weeks old, and what diffs do you have to support your claim? 331dot (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sfrarji was indeffed anyways for spam and well on their way to it anyways, didn't need to be taken here...{{ping|JustAces}}, please remove that awful obstructive "WrugTub" text from your talk page; it's blocking navigation of it. Nathannah • 📮 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Removed it as I received no acknoweldgement from JustAces. Nathannah • 📮 02:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I have just protected the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes article to be movable by admins only, after a series of good faith but undiscussed moves. I have previously full protected Operation Sindoor after a CFORK was being repeatedly recreated at that title. But there are a plethora of related articles/titles that need to be a kept an eye on including:

• 2025 Pahalgam attack
• 2025 India–Pakistan standoff
• 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
• 2025 Indian missile strikes
• 2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan
• 2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir
• 2025 Indian missile strikes on Pakistan
• 2025 Indian strikes on Pakistan
• 2025 India-Pakistan strikes
• Operation Sindoor 2025
• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict

etc. Can more admins add these pages to their watchlists and NPPers keep an eye out for creation of content/POV forks? Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Even before the Pahalgam attack and the start of the war, it already seemed like we were experiencing a serious flare-up in IPA problems on wikipedia. I second the call for all hands on deck. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Protection lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello administrators! I would like to request that the protection from creation be lifted from Katelyn Clampett, which appears to have been implemented in 2009 after the article was deleted for not passing notability standards. I believe that the subject meets WP:GNG in 2025 given the amount of sources I was able to find referencing or focusing on her music career ([https://medium.com/authority-magazine/rising-music-star-katelyn-clampett-on-the-five-things-you-need-to-shine-in-the-music-industry-9bdc6d44cb08], [https://www.newschannel5.com/talk-of-the-town/we-sit-down-with-country-artist-katelyn-clampett-about-her-new-single-aspen], [https://www.musicconnection.com/producer-crosstalk-katelyn-clampett/], [https://guitargirlmag.com/interviews/country-artist-katelyn-clampett-on-the-inspiration-for-and-teaching-her-father-her-new-single-hang-up-and-hang-out/], [https://hashtagmagazine.net/home/2022/5/27/think-its-time-to-hang-up-and-hang-out-with-katelyn-clampett/], [https://www.southernbride.com/blog/inspirations/wedding-exclusive-nashville-country-music-artist-katelyn-clampetts-hawaiian-wedding/], [https://thecountrynote.com/exclusives/interviews/exclusive-getting-to-know-katelyn-clampett/], [https://www.naludamagazine.com/katelyn-clampett-interview-unveiling-aspen/], [https://musicrow.com/2025/03/katelyn-clampett-launches-herd-music-group/], [https://sheisthemusic.org/profile/katelynclampett/], [https://pop-culturalist.com/exclusive-interview-katelyn-clampett-on-her-new-single-aspen-the-art-of-songwriting-and-whats-next/#google_vignette], [https://tasteofcountry.com/katelyn-clampett-hang-up-and-hang-out/]). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why that shouldn't be done after all this time. I haven't checked for notability, so please make sure that you've addressed the reasons for deletion given at the previous AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've removed protection from the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

There is a backlog of AfDs overdue for closing. By my count, 44 discussions over four days' logs; this is the most I've ever seen, and it has been growing for several days now. The denizens of AfD would really appreciate if some admins could pitch in to help resolve this. Toadspike [Talk] 05:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Backlog is mostly cleared now. – robertsky (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Please be advised of a proposal for community sanctions at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• User talk:Nguyentrongphu

This is the talk page of a user that was indeffed 4 years ago. They also happen to be an admin on Vietnamese WP. The talk page seems to be being used a fair bit as a place where vi.wp editors they have blocked on vi.wp appeal to them - although Nguyentrongphu doesn't respond. Should the page be protected? DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not only that, but an IP restored (and responded to in Vietnamese) content by Nguyentrongphu that Nguyentrongphu had removed several years ago. I've reverted the page to Nguyentrongphu's last edit and semi-protected it as the only purpose for the talk page now is for them to appeal if they ever desire to (note I've also restored a declined unblock request that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nguyentrongphu&diff=prev&oldid=1051613594 removed several years ago] in violation of WP:REMOVED that nobody previosly caught). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = OP blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

1- In the page of Persian Gulf, although I kindly informed the user @Skitash about the name of Arvand Rud to be added, at least once, he removed it every time, and this is not acceptable.

2- As we know, a Wikipedia Page, is not a NEWS page. The news about the future speech of the President Trump has nothing to do with a historical truth to be added in the page! I have removed the news, and he added every time.

3- The waters in southwest Iran have always been known as the Persian Gulf and have never been officially called anything else, he added another name, and I have to undo it everytime!

I need help. PayamAvarwand (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:1. We follow WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia.

:2. That's sourced and noteworthy content, especially for a section about the Persian Gulf naming dispute.

:3. "Arabian Gulf" was added to the lede as a result of an RfC. I'm unsure why you decided to ignore the invisible note and proceed with deleting it anyway.

:4. You've been edit warring and have been reported to WP:AN3 accordingly. Skitash (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:You've removed sourced information and an alternate name decided by an RFC. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Point of order - it was not PayamAvarwand who originally ignored the invisible note and removed "Arabian Gulf" from the lede, it was {{ping|Amiyn}} - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_Gulf&diff=prev&oldid=1289456489]. That said, OP seems to have a thing for WP:THETRUTH as opposed to WP:VNT, judging by their edit summaries. I have fully protected Persian Gulf for 72 hours. (Note once this protection expires, the existing semiprotection will need to be re-added). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Note I just re-checked and saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_Gulf&diff=prev&oldid=1289495990 this]. Yeah, this is not on. Blocked OP for 24 hours for edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Isn't this a bit of a over reaction to a small edit war?. skittish only has 1 warning regarding it and yet it gets posted to admin noticeboard and the page gets full protection for 72 over one user. There is no dispute resolution or recommended talk page. idk your protocol but it seemed like a lot. not trying to stir anything up, I'm just confused. thanks JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Post-closure, but to clarify: it was two users. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Footnote: OP created a very obvious sockpuppet account and is now indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Footnote to the footnote: CU indicated the potential sock may have been a Joe job - however the user's conduct otherwise has made it clear that indef was still the correct call. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop|1=Quack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Is there anybody to control the user @Skitash?

As you see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shatt_al-Arab&action=history here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_Gulf&action=history here], he is trying to hide and destroy the persian or iranian titles! e.g. Arvand Rud

I ask you to check this seriously please. 2001:9E8:F583:9C00:353F:5D31:1022:2D82 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Are you familiar with {{u|PayamAvarwand}}? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Quack. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{hab}}

{{atop

| result = Filer blocked 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• In the page of 'The Hindu' user @SpacemanSpiff is censoring information by trying to omitting or removing the "Criticism" and "Misinformation" section content which has proper citation and multiple official sources.
• @SpacemanSpiff is threatening to block me after the guy vandalizing the page each time, the guy has some relation/lives in the place where the controversy is.
• I have added in Talk page of "The Hindu" regarding the same but no response from wiki community.

Username 111223 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Lebron James’ wiki has been defaced by vandals with racist slurs. GaelicSoxFan (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:@GaelicSoxFan the defacement was live only for 3 minutes, and some 5 hours ago. If you are seeing it from somewhere else, it could have been a screenshot during those 3 minutes. If it is on here still, it could have been a cache somewhere between you and your internet service provider. – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I have no idea the technical reason why this is happening, but it's imperative that someone figures it out immediately. You're see what I mean if you hover your cursor over the Wikilink Africa.

An extremely persistent sockmaster has been running wild on this and a few other articles, mostly related to Black people, in recent days, making massive edits which are just repetitions of the n-word in all caps like this. For some reason, despite the fact that the edits have been reverted and revision-deleted, the hover-over continues to display this grossly insulting content. The situation was brought to my attention here. Would someone with the technical understanding to fix this please do so? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note: The same racial slurs also appear when one hovers over LeBron James. We should probably do a systematic check of all the pages edited by this sockmaster (for starters, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Africa&action=history&offset=&limit=500 the Africa article's contrib history] going back to 13 November 2024) to check for further instances of this glitch. Generalrelative (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fyi, purging doesn't seem to fix the issue. This may be an issue with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews Page Previews]. The issue doesn't occur when you have WP:Popups enabled. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it was appearing for my popups for Africa before I purged it, although my recall could be off. CMD (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Whoever fixed the issue for Africa, thanks! Could you also do the same for LeBron James? Generalrelative (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::LeBron James's page preview seems OK now. I was looking at some old talk page discussions on MediaWiki about Page Previews, and a similar problem in the past was resolved by making a dummy/null edit and re-purging the page. I did those steps here, though I'm not sure if that's what ultimately fixed it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yup, it's fixed now. Thanks. I went through the contrib history of Africa and looked at all the pages edited by the socks who had done this. I didn't see any more articles with the hover-over problem, so it looks like the issue has been resolved. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Generalrelative and @CMD, I just noticed the work you put in to trying to resolve the issue at Talk:Africa. Thanks for all you did, and thanks to the IP editors that brought this issue up. (Also, CMD -- I think you're right about the purging fixing the issue for Navigation Pop-ups. That extension probably just works differently than Page Preview for some reason.) On another note, it's a bit worrying that this issue apparently persisted for several hours, but I suppose that's an issue for another discussion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There was brief discussion of the technical issues involved here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Preview vandalism problems. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks, helpful phab link. "purge and then make non-zero dummy edits or real edits to the WP:LEDE between manual purges. And give it time." Well, unfortunately I did the first and last steps, but missed the steps in between. CMD (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I came across Wikipedia:Help desk#How can I fix vandalism in a page preview (*not* the actual page) which seems to have been resolved, but is it related to the issues here? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like the same problem. Maybe someone can confirm whether action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 will work for page previews (and perhaps why its use must be responsible). CMD (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the "responsible" part probably just means don't do it unnecessarily on pages (templates realistically) with lots of transclusions as you'll continually set up long queues. For beans reasons I won't give any examples, there might already be protections anyway but I can easily see it creating issues for admins if editors keep doing it with such pages. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Is this sort of thing what has also been happening at Talk:Battle of Helena? Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I just noticed that Zhao Xintong that's linked on the main page had content in the page preview that was reverted 6 hours ago. I did a normal action=purge, one with forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 and another with forcelinkupdate=true using the API via Special:ApiSandbox. The first two didn't seem to do anything, but on the third, the preview was updated. forcerecursivelinkupdate should do the same thing as forcelinkupdate in updating link tables and other secondary data updates, so it might have just taken a few seconds, idk. Trim02 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Generalrelative}}, {{ping|Aoi}}, {{ping|Hog Farm}}, {{ping|Acroterion}}? Should we make an LTA case because the vandalism on Africa goes back to 8/3/23. The vandal is called “Saturnium119” 2600:100C:B0A7:AC00:E40E:A922:A414:6792 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

As a result of an appeal, {{user|Someonefighter}}'s site ban is vacated and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed). The topic ban can be appealed in six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Someonefighter}}

Long term harassment towards mainly me, but also other no-wiki sysops are sometimes targeted. Banned for all eternity @ no-wiki, where he posted nonsense about «Guds lapskaus» (English: God’s stew), here @ en-wiki he just ranomdly vandalizes writing God’s stew or Norwegian stew.

Constantly changing IP addresses. Please block IP and delete User talk:77.18.56.182, use Google translate to understand what he writes in Norwegian. Other edits should be reverted and possibly hidden. This user also needs TPA revoked immediately, see WP:AN#Long term abuse and harassment.

On top of that, please hide the revisions he made last time @ User talk:2A02:2121:348:77A2:FDEA:34CB:3E6D:423F.

Thanks! 1000mm (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:The two other no-wiki sysops are harassed as well.

:* User:Znuddel in this Special:Diff/1289612977

:* User:Anne-Sophie Ofrim in this Special:Diff/1289613161

:1000mm (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{articlelinks|Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation}}

Of general interest to administrators - per an update at WP:VPWMF from Joe Sutherland, the WMF has restored access to the article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. This follows a ruling of the Indian Supreme Court setting aside the Delhi High Court's ruling that the article violated sub judice rules, as reported on by Reuters and other outlets. Good news! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:What was the status of this article before it was restored by this office action? Deleted, oversighted, and protected from editing? Or was it somewhat less strict? Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Non-admin comment}} Office protected with a big notice saying basically "We're sorry, but due to a court order, this article is restricted." Worgisbor (congregate) 05:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Nyttend}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation&oldid=1252542744 This] was the status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::The previous revisions were oversighted, yes. See {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Oversight#Request copy of WMF-office protected page}}. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Restored by {{np|The Bushranger}} {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{articlelinks|United Peoples' Party (Bangladesh)}}
• {{articlelinks|United People's Bangladesh}}

Someone moved United Peoples' Party (Bangladesh) and turned it into a new article. Please split the edit history, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_People%27s_Bangladesh&oldid=1284453806 restore this version] and move it back to the original title. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{done}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello, I am concerned about the neutrality of the article FufuFafa. I previously added the {{NPOV}} tag to indicate that the article may violate Wikipedia’s Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The article presents politically sensitive claims in a seemingly factual tone without proper context or strong reliable sources.

The subject of the article, a public figure, has explicitly denied the claims, yet the article currently implies their truth without clear attribution or balance. Despite this, the neutrality tag was removed without discussion or effort to address the issues.

I request that administrators review the article to evaluate its compliance with BLP and NPOV policies. Page protection might also be necessary if the neutrality concerns persist.

Thank you for your attention. 2001:448A:10E8:3453:FC6E:758E:AAFF:29F (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:As per the explanation in the removal of the tag, "revert drive-by tag; no explanation of what changes are requested". Please use the article talk page to discuss changes. I also suggest you ditch the AI and use your own words. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have added it to the discus page to not remove it. Please check. Naruminato (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

At this page, it says "The result of the discussion was to be determined by Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#RFC: Name of alleged killer". Since the Request for Comment is now closed as exclude, should the redirect now be deleted? If this is not the correct forum, would someone be able to please let me know the correct forum? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The RfC was closed by {{u|Chetsford}} as "no consensus to include the name of the suspect and no consensus to exclude it". I assume the redirect itself is not affected by the no consensus closure? Some1 (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Yo|Some1}}, actually, the page says "If the discussion there results in a consensus to exclude the subject's name, this redirect should then be deleted". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The RfC did not find "consensus to exclude the subject's name" though. It found no consensus to include or exclude the name. Some1 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Good point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have to mostly agree with Some1 based on the wording of the close on the redirect. With no consensus, the state of the article returned to where it was before the dispute, with the name excluded. A stable version of a redirect isn't quite a 1:1 comparison with the stable version of an article. So the effect on the redirect seems kind of murky to me, but the redirect was up during the whole process (with the notice that there was a discussion ongoing). Also, by removing the notice of the discussion, and reverting it to a bog standard redirect, the closer chose to leave it up while waiting for the article RFC consensus, which suggests to me that the redirect being active is better argued as the stable version.

:::So I think we have the correct results implemented now: the removal of the name from the article, but the continued existence of a redirect, based on both being the stable versions before the no consensus. But it's certainly not a slam dunk; I don't think the conclusion is obvious, just the interpretation I think is closer to the rules and spirit. (I did not participate in either RFC). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::While the inclusion or non-inclusion of the redirect or, indeed the determination of what constituted the stable version of the article, is outside the scope of the RfC to identify, I generally agree with CoffeeCrumbs' analysis of the situation. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Closure will occur through regular AFD process. Whpq (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

The AfD discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambella University has been open for 7 days. I believe the discussion may be ready for closure. Requesting review and closure by an uninvolved administrator. Thank you. Wieditor25 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's not how things work. Seven days is a minimum, not a maximum, and discussions can be left open for more than seven days — and this page is not for requesting simple closures of AFD discussions anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification. I'm still learning the rules. Wieditor25 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Wrong wiki|1=Commons stuff is dealt with on Commons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tales_logo.png

Non-free content (a copyrighted and trademarked television anthology logo owned by a corporation) was uploaded without the proper categorization. Posting this to notify administrators so that it can either be deleted or supplemented with the proper templates and disclaimers. Darkknight2149 15:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The image is uploaded on Commons and not locally here. Any i ssues would need to be addressed there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:It was uploaded at Commons based on it being below the US threshold of originality (text and simple shapes only) and considered ineligibility for copyright. You might disagree with this but that would have to be discussed at Commons. Masem (t) 15:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Wrong noticeboard--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

India all 3 wings showing damage of all their airbases kindly add in new version. 174.94.10.8 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't an administrator matter, please use the relevant article talk page to discuss changes. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

A person, using several accounts ({{Userlinks|Sojetz}}, {{Userlinks|Erledigungs}} and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, quite new to Wikipedia as an editor, but have been getting familiar to the page protection policy since about 2023. I've been looking through the request for page protection archives over the past several months and noticed there were some articles intended to be protected temporary, but were somehow never set to expire. Examples include:

Avocado, intended to be semi-protected for one year

Golden Gate, intended to be semi-protected for 10 days

Maldives, intended to be semi-protected for one month

Was it a last minute change from temporary to indefinite, or was the expiry dates just weren't set? Do you think you can either unprotect those articles to see how it goes, or do you think the protections are still necessary? A similar issue happened with the Cambodia article; that was accidently semi-protected indefinitely in 2018, but was unprotected in 2023 following this discussion. However, the article was semi-protected again just 23 days later when disruptive editing returned. BriDash9000 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• You should ask the admins who made the changes. In the past, I have changed my mind on protection after posting one time duration, and deciding a longer one was more appropriate, but it isn't a common thing. It might have been a mistake (either the protection duration, or the comment not stating the proper time) or it might have been a change of heart once they got to the page, but the admin corps as a whole isn't going to know about these individual instances, only the admin that performed the work will know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:As stated, probably just mistakes. Probably if there are other situations like these where there is a discrepancy, putting in a request at RFPP for a downgrade in protection would be the best way forward for the future. As for now, pinging {{ping|Ymblanter|Anachronist|Daniel Case|prefix=|p=}} per the above. Super Goku V (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Concerning Avocado, I intended to apply indefinite protection and I applied indefinite protection. We can discuss whether it is a good idea to unprotect the article after 9 years protection, but I do not see any mistakes here. The one year applied to unlocked move protection, which I did not touch. Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::What the heck is it about avacados [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=Avocado that made them such a vandalism magnet]? Good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well... I had come to learn that there are haters of the fruit to the point that such vandalism isn't surprising to me. – robertsky (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of it may be related to memes too, such as (but not limited to) the "free sha vaca doo" meme. That said, I'm not going to go back through the page history to figure out what it was at the time or historically (because I'm lazy). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have lifted the protection on Maldives Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:All things being equal, WP:PROT is certainly one of the more esoteric area of the project to immerse oneself in. For two years. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The following users were granted indefinite confirmed rights by an event coordinator more than 10 days ago, in violation of the rules for use of event coordinator access:

{{cot}}

• {{noping|RichardSDunn}}
• {{noping|MrJoyoung}}
• {{noping|Jnaslund}}
• {{noping|MercyFrank}}
• {{noping|Dayuze}}
• {{noping|Oluwabukola Omokehinde}}
• {{noping|IsabellaBnc}}
• {{noping|Idvdl}}
• {{noping|Amarachi O.P}}
• {{noping|Opusbaba}}
• {{noping|Chidinma Ubakanwa}}
• {{noping|MurielPerth2}}
• {{noping|Munirah2019}}
• {{noping|Matthewsrfloyd}}
• {{noping|Alexandriadavis15322}}
• {{noping|Abbywelch2023}}
• {{noping|Whispercheese}}
• {{noping|Pitufao}}
• {{noping|Kiritusu}}
• {{noping|Cmhintze}}
• {{noping|Suerdem22}}
• {{noping|WGaieck}}
• {{noping|Circa1350BC}}
• {{noping|Bendigeidfran39}}
• {{noping|Grace1381}}
• {{noping|CondorRCItalia}}
• {{noping|Cristalfox}}
• {{noping|Caramel shortbread101}}
• {{noping|JWGarside}}
• {{noping|BitsAndPiecesSMG}}
• {{noping|AlisonkaySMG}}
• {{noping|SarahBainesSIMSMG}}
• {{noping|ToniJB101}}
• {{noping|Prabha.shah}}
• {{noping|WyattNJ60}}
• {{noping|OTisfun22}}
• {{noping|Ad5685}}
• {{noping|Wnylrc}}
• {{noping|Eniboalbert}}
• {{noping|Peekaboo12}}
• {{noping|Ifeomawealth}}
• {{noping|Abeyfash}}
• {{noping|Zeroson}}
• {{noping|Fkutere}}
• {{noping|Fisayo og}}
• {{noping|PVCLP}}
• {{noping|SegunLaw}}
• {{noping|Osasigbins}}
• {{noping|2CV6Green}}
• {{noping|Comms4u}}
• {{noping|Katie Howe}}
• {{noping|Gei1a08}}
• {{noping|Lauren.hoskin}}
• {{noping|Alice.Dowden}}
• {{noping|TRC100!}}
• {{noping|Hung-yuan.cheng}}
• {{noping|Patrick Easterbunny}}
• {{noping|Amy Ronaldson}}
• {{noping|78Wombat}}
• {{noping|26MH}}
• {{noping|Acamedic}}
• {{noping|SJphysio}}
• {{noping|SueBellass}}
• {{noping|Ana-Cat PG}}
• {{noping|LKaluvu}}
• {{noping|Nina Jenkins}}
• {{noping|Patient and Public Involvement Lead}}
• {{noping|Tinyroadrunner}}
• {{noping|YellowMyxine}}
• {{noping|NacreBeluga}}
• {{noping|OpaleBeluga}}
• {{noping|IW(WMUKTraining)}}
• {{noping|Mfuentes5}}
• {{noping|Smaughan30}}
• {{noping|Namrudophile}}
• {{noping|Musahjoseph}}
• {{noping|Nmantica}}
• {{noping|CarlosRobbin.02}}

{{cob}}

Should their illegitimate "confirmed" accesses be revoked? (I'm an admin so could do so myself, but figured it would be wiser to post here before revoking 78 users' permissions) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: some of those editors have 0 edits (eg. Kiritusu) Huldra (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm indifferent to revoking the confirmed flags. If any of these editors made ten edits today, they'd immediately get autoconfirmed since their accounts are per se older than 4 days. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: True, but until they make 10 edits they have rights they would not have had had someone not breached our rules. And I don't see why we should allow that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think we need to be too pedantic about 10 days, nor use the term illegitimate. However, looking at them individually I'd probably agree with removal, especially anything referencing a single editathon some time ago. I'd hope you could justify each removal rather than saying 'rules'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The most recently granted case is {{noping|CarlosRobbin.02}} in January 2025. The others all date to March 2024 or earlier, with most being even older than that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:The yare not editing, therefore they have no need to be confirmed. My only concern with removal is I know with EC if I grant and remove an editor's for gaming at 400, they won't get it automatically at 30/500. Should any of these become active, would they get confirmed automatically after your removal or would they have to request that and then EC? That could be confusing for them, but not a strong argument against. Star Mississippi 02:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's safe to remove them, they will autoconfirm as needed. The event coordinator granting out of scope should be coached. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot by mentioning this, but your analysis didn't catch my granting of the confirmed user right to Shicari r, who is blind and therefore cannot complete our CAPTCHA (or did you filter them out manually?) I knew about the general confirmed-user expiration date rule but re situations like this, I've always thought it best to ignore all rules here (I actually know of a blind user who was put out by a confirmed flag auto-expiring). However, in this case, they haven't made any edits; I've reached out to this user by email; given what they were going to use it for (a student project), they should've edited by now. I'd done my best to verify they were who they said they were before helping them out here. Also, this sort of situation is unlikely to happen very often. Graham87 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Indeed, I missed that one because I excluded grants by both current and former admins (not thinking about the scenario where a former admin was granted event coordinator rights after their desysop). And the query I was using to find these relies on the user_former_groups table, so crosschecking timestamps so as to include Shicari r but exclude the many people you granted confirmed rights to while you were still an admin and hence not subject to the 10-day limit exceeds what I'm willing to code. {{pb}} It turns out there are two such users: you and {{Noping|Gnagarra}} who has not made use of their ability to grant confirmed rights as an event coordinator since their desysop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, I granted it to myself just before my desysop, but the outcome is the same. If consensus is that these situations should have at least *some* kind of expiry (maybe 3/6/12 months?), I'll do so in the future. (Maybe in this case I should've checked that the user could log in first ... better followup all-round might've been better). The other user is {{Noping|Gnangarra}}. Graham87 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Probably put a time limit of any duration up to three months to user right and renew when needed. Ideally, the person would have clocked enough edits by the time the user right lapses for autoconfirmed rights to kick in. – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if it's the same, but noticed in my watchlist today that {{ping|JJMC89}} removed autopatrolled from Possibly and one of DGG's alts. This is, of course, correct since the deceased editors have no means of using the varied rights. They noted retention of other varied permissions: mover, EC. It brings up the question of what the processed is when an account is locked on an editor's death and if we're going to revoke for non use, whether the steward who locks or an admin active on their TP should remove at lock. Thoughts? No issue at all with JJMC's edits, just thought related to this conversation. 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:when I went to notify JJMC89 that I'd flagged this here, I noted this was actually a result of Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Flag_removal_process, but kept it nested as it's a similar issue of stale permissions. Feel free to move elsewhere if needed. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/49.230.61.5 and the histories of the pages the IP has edited. Each time they are blocked, they immediately switch to a different IP address and continue. It's been going on for some weeks. Can we do anything about this, like set up an edit filter? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=49.224.64.216%2F17&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=1000 a lot of bad edits, some serous BLP ones. Might be a school.

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I want to change my username but I am indefinitely blocked on ruwiki. Is this a problem? Leo^talk 11:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{nao}} @Leo, no it shouldn't be; see WP:CHUN for details! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)