Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive370#Tban appeal

{{atop|status=Word salad|1=This appears to be an issue at Commons. It may not have been "properly resolved at Wikicommons", but the issue must be resolved at Commons. The rest is a rant. If you want help, ask for help regarding en.wiki and don't cast aspersions on those you regard as "deletionists". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello. This post might technically eventually be about an issue over at Wikicommons, but please don't brush it off on those grounds, as that issue was not properly resolved at Wikicommons, and there is another MUCH BIGGER issue attached, and also, maybe more eyeballs and duly authorised hands over here will be able to help where that didn't happen over there:

I'm looking at Mattel Aquarius#Character set. This content was merged in January 2021 from Mattel Aquarius character set, where the initial work took place. In even trying to nail down and getting to explaining the mistake, I ran into a HUGE issue, one I have run into before, including when browsing the history of the UTF-8 character set (table).
I realise some people (maybe not you, but some people) might be inclined to sweep aside a problem with Wikipedia's coverage of the Mattel Aquarius character set, or might even think about "solving" the issue with more deletionism, but this following huge issue does affect Wikipedia's coverage of UTF-8, which none of us will be able to sweep aside.

I'll title this subsection the

for reasons that will become clear.

So, the HUGE BIG STONKING issue and massive problem with apparently current general or at least discouragingly common practice at Wikipedia is this:

Very, very, very often, deletionists will pursue and accomplish the deletion of templates on the grounds that currently nobody relies on them anymore. This they often do because deletionism is a form of pedantry, in the traditional etymological "that'll teach 'em" sense: They don't like thing X, hence they don't want you to have it, and nobody can have it, so say the self-appointed teachers (deletionists) to us, the children and recalcitrant pupils (non-deletionists). There is of course absolutely no good reason to erase a template "nobody uses" anymore, but they're very afraid of being proven wrong, so they delete the template just in case someone might think of using it.

On a long enough timeframe, this zealous overreach is an outright catastrophic problem, because it vandalises history and makes a non-trivial amount of it significantly inaccessible:

You see, the problem is, the past is not what Wikipedia's Winston Smiths would have you think. The past—and editing history on ultimately thousands of articles affected by this issue—again, the past was different from what deletionists and historical revisionists (but I repeat myself) would rather like.

So when these literally non-constructive editors aggressively pursue the deletion of templates "nobody uses now", those templates almost unfailingly used to be relied upon by something on Wikipedia – sometimes widely relied upon. And that's in the edit history. The deletion of "unused" templates today drastically vandalises the history, the edit history, of the past, and often makes past edits and pages upon pages of template-reliant historical content inscrutable.

That's vandalism. That's 1984. It should not be happening.

The same is true, to a much lesser extent, for images, but it's not as bad with those, as actual page content is not as deeply intertwined with "just the pics", and also, unlike templates, there sometimes are good reasons to affirmatively wipe images, notably copyright issues. By their very nature, templates don't tend to suffer from actual copyright issues in anything near the same way.

Concretely, the place I ran into the template deletion issue now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mattel_Aquarius_character_set&oldid=984610717#Character_set was here]. This is far from the worst example of the impact template deletion can have upon recorded (edit) history, but you can see the problem, and how this time, I got to the point where rant mode toggled on.

There is a possible technical fix for this, one which even deletionists might consider a happy medium, but it requires high-level intervention, possibly developer intervention:

If a template "nobody uses" or should be using anymore really cheeses you off, then maybe there ought to be an option to ostracise the template by consigning it to history without actually deleting it, meaning: Once you tick that "ostracise" box, the template will no longer render in current article revisions, while still rendering just fine in all past article revisions, throughout the history.

If you can swing that, that would all but solve the issue. The final act of redemption would be the undeletion of already-deleted templates, and all of those could also be ostracised. That would make it possible to browse Wikipedia's edit history again without running into these highly aggravating issues ever so often. If mass template undeletion is too much to ask, maybe at least give us a process to ask for template undeletion into ostracism. Also, ostracism might sometimes be the right choice for non-template content.

Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled programme,

COMEÞ NOUU the mistake I wanted to ask for your help with, the one that was not fixed at Wikicommons:

What follows may take some explaining but ultimately is a simpler problem that possibly doesn't need Administrator attention – but it still needs somebody's help. If you, the busy Admin, want to skip this, please point me somewhere else for help with the below. Thanks.

The Mattel Aquarius character set includes a good bunch of characters that were not in Unicode until September 2024, when they became part of Unicode, in the Symbols for Legacy Computing Supplement Unicode block. It also includes a whole bunch of characters added in 2020, in the earlier Symbols for Legacy Computing code block. (Read the PDFs and relevant forums; the history and resurrection story is fascinating.) Between those two blocks, this little machine that could not even has now, since the year of our Lord 2024, achieved round-trip convertibility, meaning you can losslessly convert data from the most humble of 8-bit home micros to modern UTF-8 and back again. But I digress. You see, when those characters were not in Unicode, those working on representing the character set table in Wikipedia used pictures instead. I don't think they did that for all the characters, because some of those weren't simple shapes, but they did this for clearly unencumbered ones, like the simple-shape "sextant" characters. If you look at the history of User:Rowan03, who seems to have been inactive since 2020, he [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Rowan03&target=Rowan03&offset=20180207224509&limit=100 uploaded a bunch of sextant character pictures] to Wikicommons. I want to draw your attention to his upload of 31 January 2018, at 22:42: This is where Rowan accidentally uploaded the wrong picture under the wrong filename. He recognised his mistake and requested help with renaming the picture. As best I can make out, User:Krassotkin [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mattel_Aquarius_character_0xBA.png&diff=next&oldid=284452395 intervened, but seems to have done it wrong], either accidentally or "accidentally on purpose". I note that that user now is subject to a quite serious ban, so maybe the latter is not unlikely. Whatever the truth of that matter, the long and the short of it is that

both :File:Mattel Aquarius character 0xBA.png and :File:Mattel Aquarius character 0xBB.png are now identical, and the description isn't right either. The real shapes are [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19025-terminals-prop.pdf#page=20 here: Fig.4, p.20]. The nomenclature here is that the six (2x3) "sextant" pixels are counted and labelled left-to-right, then top-to-bottom, and only those semigraphics pixels that are on are named. In the Mattel Aquarius character set, those pictures (from back when they weren't in Unicode) appeared as characters 186 and 187, or 0xBA and 0xBB, respectively. They're identical. It's confusingly non-apparent on Wikipedia what's going on, but on Wikicommons, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mattel_Aquarius_character_0xBB.png 0xBB actually redirects to 0xBA], when it really shouldn't. Per said sextant nomenclature, 0xBA should be 2-4-5 and 0xBB 1-2-4-5. Per Symbols for Legacy Computing, these should be U+1FB18 and U+1FB19, respectively. The latter page actually shows you the right shapes if you have the requisite fonts installed and recently upgraded. The table on the Mattel Aquarius page still shows incorrect shapes because it relies on those pictures. Now before anyone's tempted to brush things under the carpet and to just delete the pictures and make Mattel Aquarius use actual characters too: WAIT. Please wait. The right thing to do here, for reasons similar to those complained of at length above is that the mistake should be fixed, the correct picture should be uploaded and substituted (which I don't think I've done here; your help is welcome and wanted), and then we should wait for the Wayback Machine to do its thing in archiving the fix, and then, once font/character support is ubiquitous, and only then might we wish to update that table to use "real" UTF-8 characters. 'Sound like a plan? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: I'm also seeing another issue in that Aquarius character set table, where its character 219, 0xDB, i.e. U+1FBEB LEFT JUSTIFIED RIGHT HALF BLACK CIRCLE doesn't render right, but I suspect that might just be transient font issues on my machine – unless there's a problem with a widely-distributed font and it isn't just me? In such case, please lemme know.

:Please state in two simple and clear sentences sentence exactly what needs to be done on enwiki and/or on commons to fix the problem. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why this is an administrative issue on either Commons or en.Wikipedia. You don't need to be an admin on commons to upload pictures. So if you have copyright compliant pictures of those characters where we currently lack correct pictures then upload them to commons. If there are existing files, then rather than fluffing around with renames, just give the file a different name. Then once you've done that, go to the relevant Wikipedia page and replace any of the pictures which are the wrong character with the right one. Once you've done that feel free to submit the page for archival at archive.org or whatever other archive site you want and within a few minutes, you won't have to worry if the pictures are replaced with actual unicode characters. If you don't have pictures for those characters, that still isn't an administrative issue, go to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab and ask for help or try somewhere else more suitable for help getting pictures you don't have. If you can't find anyone willing and able to make characters, then tough cookies. Wikipedia (and Commons) are volunteer projects, so if you can't find someone willing to do something you care about you need to either do it yourself somehow or accept it won't be done. I mean if you do have the right pictures, you could try to get a rename at commons later if you really want but to my mind this is a fairly unimportant detail in the grand scheme of things and in any case not something for en to care about, it's an issue for commons if they have poorly named pictures which we are not using. To be blunt, this seems to me more like an excuse to rant about deletionism and other stuff. To be clear, AN is not the place to request new features. That would be WP:VPT or WP:VPR or maybe by opening a ticket somewhere (although I expect it'll be closed if there isn't any evidence of community demand for the feature). Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::BTW, if some of the pictures have already been replaced with actual Unicode characters, frankly although wikipedia isn't exactly a place for you to do stuff for your own personal need, I don't think anyone would have really cared if in that one likely rarely visited page you'd just replaced those characters with correct pictures for about 20 minutes, submitted the page for archival then came back and self reverted once archival was done, especially if you hadn't opened a big rant on AN beforehand. Ultimately whether the page uses correct pictures or actual characters probably isn't that big of a deal so it isn't clearly disruptive or something which could easily be considered WP:POINT to make the change even if you're only really doing it for your own personal needs. Of course now that you have left a big rant, editors might be more annoyed if you did do it. Likewise if for some reason you feel you need to do it with multiple pages. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd add that it's possible to upload files over an existing one so you might not even have to worry about renames or deletions. (Both versions are visible in the history.) I have no idea about the protections etc involved here and whether it's possible for these files, but my point is even if it's an issue I don't see any reason to be so worked up about it when you can just upload the correct file under a different name and worry later about resolving the possibly incorrect file if really needed. In any case, if it really matters so much to you the incorrect files are dealt with, you will need to take it to commons not here. Also I see you've already had a help desk question directed to WP:VPI, another place which is far more suitable than AN for a feature request. Although I would say wherever you propose it, you're likely to find your proposal has far less chance of success if you start it off with a rant about deletionists. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Be aware of :c:COM:OVERWRITE. DMacks (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|ReadOnlyAccount}}, if you want help then you need to ask for it much more concisely, and without the ninety-something percent of your post which consists of irrelevant content. I very much doubt that anyone (except maybe Nil Einne) knows what you are asking for, or, quite frankly, cares. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, just tossing this into a word counter, I get a reading time of 5.5 minutes for the original post on this thread. Few, if any, people are going to read all of that. It's just too much. Please remember we're all volunteers here. ReadOnlyAccount, try to be far more concise. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Confirmed and back in the drawer. Star Mississippi 00:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello - we have a suspected sock @Orunaalkallan who edited Talk:Kattan dynasty 100's of times to artificially boost edit counts.

They have engaged in edit wars in Kerala on multiple occasions.

They have been warned of edit wars on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orunaalkallan&diff=prev&oldid=1280829470]16th march by @Benison and about nonconstructive edits by other users.

Recently, they added multiple images into infobox of Kerala, thereby inflating the infobox image count to 15. Their edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala&diff=prev&oldid=1279288792] edits violated Wikipedia:GALLERY and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

I reverted these changes and immediately warned them not to re-add them in Talk:Kerala#Recent changes and on their User talk:Orunaalkallan However they continuously added them back in after i warned them about WP:ONUS, WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Consensus

There is a blatant disregard for the community and they have engaged in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Please investigate Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and consider banning the user account and please take action against disruptive editing. Astropulse (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:WP:SPI is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{confirmed}} to some other socks and blocked. If you see something really obvious like this, it might be better to just contact a CheckUser directly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Noted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election}}

Recently, a large edit war erupted at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&action=history see history]). Quite a number of accounts were involved, including some that would appear to be sockpuppets. To stop the edit war, I fully protected the article for 1 week [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=168377020]. I posted a notice regarding the full protection here. After a bit of sandbox sand tossing and finger pointing in that thread, an RfC was started to sort out criteria (see RfC). Some productive motion is happening in the RfC, but no consensus has yet been assessed. Various editors are wanting the article to be unlocked. The full protection is going to expire in about 14 hours. I've placed a very stern and final warning regarding edit warring and sockpuppeting on the article here, pinging all recent editors in the process to make sure everyone understands there will be no further warnings before blocks will be applied for edit warring and/or sockpuppeting. Some suggestions have been made to apply EC protection, which I'd rather not do but I'm amenable to.

It is possible that I will not be around to monitor when the protection expires at 03:22 UTC 16 March 2025 (tomorrow). Some other eyes on this when the protection expires would be useful, especially a few hours after the protection expires when morning comes round in the UK. Given the warning and pings I made here, admins should feel at liberty to apply blocks as needed to prevent this edit war from erupting again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|Extended content: consensus is that there was no accusation. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)}}

:This user {{diff||prev|1280525519|has accused more than a dozen different editors}} (including myself) of edit warring and sock puppetry. I think that accusation is overly broad and WP:UNCIVIL. While there might be something afoot at this article, such a broad-brush accusation of a serious offense is wholly inappropriate and counter-productive. As if that weren't egregious enough, this user has brought the issue up here, in the AN mud-pit ... but did so without notifying any of the users they admonished in their message on that talk page and included here. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I can only imagine it was due to lack of time and maybe a combination of a software that collates the last slew of names who edited? Hammer by name, :D, the talk page was crazytown though, it did need a hard-handed sheriff to ride in. The talk page took me a while to sift through and guess on how many socks there are, even so, I do mildly agree with the "broad-brush" stroke, though as I'm not a sock, I didn't fear it. I can read the CU queue is busy, but this page does need a good look at. I'd bet three bob there's at least 3 there.Halbared (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Mikeblas}} I didn't accuse you nor any other specific person of edit warring or sockpuppeting. If you go back and read what I said before the pings at the top of the notice I posted, you will note that it says {{tq|"Pings to anyone who has edited the article in the last two weeks:"}}. The notice did not say "pinging the people who edit warred and/or sockpuppeted". I am painting the broad brush because there were dozens of reversions in an edit war shortly before I protected it. The edit war was wildly out of hand, achieving nothing, and causing mass disruption to the article. The people who are interested in maintaining the article needed to be aware of the edit war and sockpuppeting and that there would now be zero tolerance for it moving forward. If I were instead to apply a thin brush, and only block those who had edit warred before, it would essentially be giving carte blanche to resume the mass disruption to the article to the people who weren't involved in this edit war. Relax. There is no reason to feel accused, either by you nor anyone else who has edited the article in the last two weeks. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Your claim is incongruent with your words. You're forgetting paragraph you wrote that starts with {{tq|All of you should consider this a final warning}}, where you threaten us all with {{tq|with blocks WITHOUT any additional warning}}. All 27 users in your list deserve an apology, and you should either clarify or retract your post. Your approach was inappropriate, and your words have done damage. Your {{tq|Relax}} response is condescending and dismissive. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Mikeblas, if you really think I'm accusing you of edit warring when you have made 1 insignificant edit to the article after it was protected by me, then we have nothing to talk about. If you think "relax" is condescending because I'm trying to reduce heat, then again we have nothing to talk about. I will not be retracting my comment as it doesn't need to be retracted. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Of course it needs to be retracted -- see WP:CIVIL. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::mikeblas, although you were not edit-warring previously, it's quite reasonable that if you had started to edit war after the unprotection had expired you would be blocked without further warning. You could easily avoid this by keeping with your original stance of not edit warring. If you didn't like to be informed of this, I don't think any of us care since we're sick of editors complaining that they weren't adequately informed and so should be blocked. There's absolutely no reason to care about a warning that you will be blocked for something where such a block is totally justified, when it was reasonable to warn you which it clearly was as a editor of the article from before the edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's not acceptable to accuse everyone of some action and threaten to ban them for it ... because they might do it in the future. The {{tq|All of you}} admonishment was misdirected, and it's that simple. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hammersoft did not accuse anyone of anything. It's that simple. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::mikeblas, IMO you're being overly touchy here, per Nil Einne. Bishonen | tålk 10:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC).

{{HAB}}

{{hat|Hatting extended discussion about what to do about the content of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)}}

• Surely I can't be the only one thinking "why does this article exist for an election that is probably four years away?". For all previous elections it has only been "activated" when the election is announced. Assuming the next election does happen in 2029, how relevant are polls taking place now going to be? (Hint: not relevant at all). Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :It's madness. Surely it's in contradction of WP:NOT somehow. It's large already, and as it seem to be getting updated with every single opinion poll that takes place, by 2029 it will be *gulp* how big?! That level of detail is unencyclopaedic and the opposite of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::* Add to that multiple new editors who are SPAs on that single article, for whatever reason, and you have a complete mess. And yeah, I do wonder if WP:NOTSTATS applies here, because there's no context to the vast swathes of tables, just ... stats. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: See AfD on the article from last year. I do note however there are at least two contributors to that AfD whose only edits were to the AfD. This seems par for the course for this article; lots of contributions by SPAs. This type of article tends to get very, very long. See Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. For whatever reason, this most recent page has drawn 415 thousand pageviews in the last 30 days. It's highly visible (part of the reason I protected it for a week to stop the disruption). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Is that a high, or unusually high number for this sort of page?Halbared (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::*Right... Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, what is certain is that an election will happen at some point within the time frame up to and including 2029. Maybe keep the major polls, or ones at regular intervals?Halbared (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::The discussion on what to do about the article and/or its content is not appropriate for this noticeboard. I recommend starting a discussion on the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree. This is not the place to discuss this. This thread was simply a "heads up" but it got hijacked by someone who doesn't seem to understand what a warning is. Let's close it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{HAB}}

{{abot}}

{{atop|body=OP indef'ed, history cleanup due to an issue caused by them complete! I have also fixed a typo in the spelling of "Article" in the title of this section. MolecularPilot^Talk 08:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Please remove the article from the blacklist and move it to Artcile space Dhafir-burhan (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:What article are you talking about? We need to know both the blacklisted name (where you want the article to be) and the article you have that should be at that name. DMacks (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{user|Dhafir-burhan}} has been indeffed as a promotion account. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:As part of their disruption, they moved their user-talk to article-talk, which then got deleted there (Talk:نبيل البرادعي) and a new user-talk with new messages created. Should we do history cleanup to fix that fragmentation? DMacks (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{done}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello admins,

I recently discovered that my Wikipedia account was compromised, and multiple unauthorized edits were made. I have since recovered my account and changed my password.

I kindly request an admin to **revert all edits made from my account** to restore the previous correct versions.

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Thank you for your help! TheQuint5 (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Compromised accounts are blocked, so I've done so. We don't know if you are the original operator or not. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::The fact this editor had made exactly three prior edits, all on 20 September 2022, means this smells distinctly fishy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm certainly quite skeptical that someone compromised their account just 21 minutes after they registered, immediately made three incompetent-but-tame copy edits, and then never edited again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=User blocked per COI VRT queue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Graye04}}

Graye04 has been moving draftified articles back to mainspace with little or no improvement. They also made several breaking moves of Aeros Corporation, and at least {{diff|Aeros Corporation|prev|1280856521|one edit}} to Aeros that removed useful links and left broken markup. Several of his image uploads to Commons have been deleted as copyvios, and there are fair use issues with some of their uploads here. The NPP who moved the articles to draftspace in the first place tagged most of them with undisclosed COI notices, which Graye04 {{diff|User talk:Graye04|prev|1280918816|denies}}.

I'm not sure what action is appropriate here, if any, so I'm bringing it up for further opinions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:According to WP:DRAFTOBJECT the appropriate action is to talk about things on the article talk page(s) or at WP:AFD, unless the user is determined to have a conflict of interest, in which case it is to redraftify. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Could we get some eyes on {{User|IGenii}}? I'm not sure if this is a bot or if there is a serious WP:CIR issue or what. It's not quite vandalism but almost all of the edits are nonconstructive. Thanks! hbent (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:I doubt this is a bot (though their earlier edit summaries are LLM-generated). So I'd say we just revert the bad edits, explain why on their talk page, same as any newbie. If they get really persistent and don't respond to any talk page notices, the next step is probably a pblock from mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Slash turns up where you least expect him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)}}

This is my page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TLJ3/

I would like to update my user page to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I may become an occasional paid editor and want to clearly disclose this information while maintaining neutrality in my contributions. TLJ3 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:You shouldn't need permission to edit that page in the first place, though I should note the trailing stroke should be removed: User:TLJ3. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! I removed the trailing stroke, and that solved the issue. TLJ3 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Not sure how useful this information will be: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation&curid=78165402&diff=1281643802&oldid=1258438871] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Good to know that they're keeping up the fight, at least. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to initiate WP:RM discussion for Byzantine Greeks article. It's a low engagement article though, with only 20 active page watchers in the past 30 days. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_Greeks&action=info]

Would it be canvassing to post messages in relevant Wikiprojects? Note that I just added more Wikiprojects [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AByzantine_Greeks&diff=1281502314&oldid=1281501750] from Talk:Byzantine_Empire Bogazicili (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:As long as the messages are simple notifications not arguing for one side or the other, it shouldn't be an issue - notifying Wikiprojects is pretty much standard procedure in fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::The reason I asked is that I recently added bunch of new Wiki projects [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AByzantine_Greeks&diff=1281502314&oldid=1281501750]. Is it still fine to notify all of those?

::I'm being cautious here since it's a contentious topic. Bogazicili (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah - as long as (a) the projects are related to the topic and (b) the notification is entirely neutral, it should be all good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Great, thanks. I copy and pasted additional country projects from Talk:Byzantine Empire. Bogazicili (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just fyi, @Bogazicili, you can ask this kind of question at WP:TEA or WP:HD. -- asilvering (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{reply|Bogazicili}} Just a point of clarification to Bushrangers's good advice, you do need to make sure you're neutral in selection of projects. I don't know enough about this case to give examples, but if I make one up e.g. if there's a case where the name is largely disputed between Greeks and Turks, it most likely wouldn't be acceptable to only notify WikiProject Greece or Wikiproject Turkey. Both of these wikiprojects would likely be relevant wikiprojects so both can be notified, but only notifying one is likely to be canvassing. In this case, since you added these wikiprojects, it's important that you weren't unfairly selective in which wikiprojects you added, where ones of equal relevance to the topic were missed out for no good reason. If it seems like you were, editors are likely to be concerned. That said, this is the form of canvassing which causes the least long term harm especially if you leave a notice on the RM about your notices, since it can be simply corrected by notifying the wikiprojects you missed. Leaving non-neutral notices causes far more concern since you can't truly correct it. Anyone who's seen those non-neutral notices has seen them. Also, if you tried to be fair in what wikiprojects you added, that's probably good enough. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Good addendum - thanks for catching that Nil. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I appreciate the answers! The reason I wanted to ask in admin noticeboard is for additional clarity, given it's a contentious topic. Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|Endorsed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)}}

I am opening this review of my own closure of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1281281512 this closure] due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&oldid=1281614434#Closure_of_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Discussion_RfC_Should_%22Far-right%22_be_used_in_the_infobox this extended discussion on my talk page]. The primary objection by {{u|Cortador}} appears to be that those endorsing the closure did not make policy based arguments and should not have been weighted as they were. My counter is that they were policy compliant and agreement with the close is agreement with the closer's provided rationale at the RFC and expanded rationale at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - This has become silly, and people need to accept that the close reasoning was valid, rather than litigating it in perpetuity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• For God's sake. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I think you're involved since you !voted in the close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Oh, that's interesting! No, I disagree and I think that people who didn't !vote in the original RfC are uninvolved. If you're involved if you voted in the close review, then recursive close reviews would have tactical uses for people who were gaming the system.—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Well-reasoned close entirely within the norm for closures. DrKay (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with S Marshall's sentiment. Let's move on. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I can't see any flaw in the close that would require it to be overturned.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Finding no consensus is perfectly valid in this case. I agree with everyone that we should move on. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse People need to accept that stuff happens: you win some, you lose some. At Wikipedia, you shouldn't keep battling. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse close It's time to move on. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Uninvolved with the RfC but involved with the close review I guess? There is no reasonable way to read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1281281512 this discussion] and find an affirmative consensus for overturning. Much of the argument since the RfC has been relitigating the RfC. Opinions among the rest are somewhat evenly divided numerically, but there's some misunderstanding of WP:VOTE and WP:DUE: due weight is about determining the proportion of coverage in high-quality sources, not just the existence. Also: the possibility of further discussion on the underlying question remains open. All this relitigation is a waste of time, and this needs to be put to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse not because I agree with either close (see my !vote in the close review and the discussion on SFR's talk), but because I think close reviews on close reviews are generally not productive and this is not the rare circumstance where I woud have brought one. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse per voorts, which, oddly, is what I said in the review itself. Not stalking voorts, honestly. WP:STICK DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - I don't think there is anything to be gained at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm involved as I wrote the close that led to the review which this review is reviewing. My reading of the review of the close is that it was an accurate analysis of the community's perspective. Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Was trying to create Aditya Vikram Birla Group as a redirect for Aditya Birla Group [epnonymously named after Aditya Vikram Birla], but some words there in appear to be caught in some type of edit filter. Please see if this can be created. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Done. —Cryptic 08:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Cryptic}} Thanks. Can you also rd Deanne Panday to Deanne Pandey, had requested this at the latters Talk page but didn't receive a response. Gotitbro (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not going to do that.{{pb}}Aditya Vikram Birla Group was a false positive caught by a regex attempting to stop abusive recreations of the unrelated page Adityaram Properties by a prolific sockpuppeteer. Deanne Pandey was an unattributed cut-and-paste move from the then-G4-tagged Deanne Panday, which was also being abusively recreated by a prolific sockpuppeteer. The ill-informed 2024 AFD of the misromanized salt-evading version (not to mention the innocent contributions of the editors fooled into expanding it) mean that it can't be speedy deleted either as a recreation of the previously-afd'd version or as a creation of a banned user - both of which it indisputably is - but I'm not going to help justify its presence. —Cryptic 09:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: I'm inclined to recreate that redirect - I've always considered an AfD closed substantively to void any taint established from prior deletions when working in this area. Unless someone here wants to file Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanne Pandey (2nd nomination). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: After thinking about it for days I've undeleted the deleted article, history merged it with the current version, and left behind a redirect, especially since the majority of the content of the current version was not written by the sockpuppets in the first place. Anyone is of course welcome to file a second AfD, but until then we shouldn't make it harder to find content that already exists out of grudge-bearing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jdvillalobos/beautifulwomen

I would like to request third-party opinion on what's going on at this XfD. I understand that opinions can be strong in a discussion, but I think things have crossed a bright line which may have invalidated possible consensus in the discussion, per our canvassing rules, WP:VOTESTACKING, in particular.

That said, I have commented in the discussion, and I think third-party opinion is warranted. Thank you for looking into this. - jc37 14:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

: I have closed the discussion as delete. If there was any canvassing it was in favor of keep, so I don't think it's invalid. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Note I hatted the 'other examples' section in the middle of that MfD as it was somehow breaking the closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Blocked|1=Account confirmed compromised and blocked. Good luck on getting things sorted out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)}}

I just got back from dinner and saw this email:

"Someone, probably you, from IP address 46.154.163.13,

has changed the email address of the account "CoffeeCrumbs" to "pericogonzale[at]yandex.com" on Wikipedia.

If this was not you, contact a site administrator immediately."

The [at] was added by me.

I immediately contacted the compromised account Wikimedia address, but I also wanted to drop a notice here; I do not know how long it takes an email from them to be read, I wanted to raise the issue so that the account could at least be temporarily locked before it did some kind of damage, probably spam related, but hopefully not something worse. Thanks! 184.57.226.148 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:You might want to change your email and password quickly, probably add a lot of symbols and numbers, which is what I did with my account. Generally most people tend to hack your account quickly when the password is short and easy to guess. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, it appears the password has already been changed. Upon checking, it appears I used the same password as my WPO account, and according to Google, that was apparently seen in a data breach eight months ago. That's...not ideal. The only silver lining is that it hasn't been used yet. 184.57.226.148 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:CU verifies that the account has been compromised. Along with some others, it seems. Going to be a long night in the CU mines. I have blocked User:CoffeeCrumbs for now. Suggest enabling 2FA in the future. Spicy (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the block. Sadly, my password security is usually more responsible than this. I'm thankful that it didn't cause serious damage, and hopefully I can recover my account at some point. 184.57.226.148 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Autopatrol removed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|Renamed user 4bfad11b5298bc1badb3bdd61b6db134}}

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove autopatrol. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|2025 Nagpur violence}}

I don't know how to determine who is in the wrong in edit warring nor do I know how the dispute started and if this page's name is correct, this should be a way for me to get administrator attention to this article. There is edit warring on the article with from what I counted 10 reverts in the last day or so. For administrators information, I am uninvolved. DotesConks (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Connected to that dodgy film! Secretlondon (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Secretlondon What? I don't understand. Also you should apply protection temporarily DotesConks (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::We've had issues following the release of Chhaava, which tells a romanticised (and fake) history of Sambhaji. The violence is connected to Aurangzeb who apparently killed their hero, whenever it was. The article is under contentious topics which I'll need to read up on as I don't dive into India/Pakistan disputes normally. Secretlondon (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::There's battleground behaviour but I'd rather leave this for someone more experienced in sanctions in this area. Secretlondon (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::DotesConks, for any incidents in the future, file a report about edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, if you are seeking article protection, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is your best bet and if this is a violation of contentious topic restrictions, check and see if the editor has been notified about CTOP, if not, notify them, if yes, then and the disruption continues, file a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Liz, that would require me to report someone and I don't know who is the one edit warring and would be at fault under the policy so I wanted an administrator to sort all of that out. DotesConks (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Even then you should have posted at WP:ANI. I think this article needs WP:ECP protection for now. Lorstaking (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's not a great approach to dump a problem here and expect "an administrator to sort all of that out". You should present a case, ideally at ANEW, not here, where you identify editors and edits that are problematic and violate policy. You are a very new editor and you should learn to resolve some problems on your own and not come to ANI or AN any time you sense trouble. AN generally has much lower traffic than ANI or other noticeboards and generally deals with larger issues of concern to the administrator community along with certain subjects like unblock requests and RFC closure reviews. But as you are here longer, you will pick these things up. In general, I'd advise you to go slower when dealing with administrative matters unless you are reporting vandalism to AIV.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Explained|1=Question asked, question answered. We're all good here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)}}

I previously used this account in 2020, and then when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again in 2023, I created a new account, User:Koshchki123. Now, when going through an old password manager, I found the login to this account again. How should I proceed with the two accounts? Кощки123 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• You can keep both if you use them for different reasons (phone and computer, for instance) but you should link them if you use both. One way is to put the template {{green|{{Alternate account|YourOtherAccountName}}}} on each of your user pages. If you don't want to use both, just stop using one of them and only use the other. You can put a note on the unused one, on the user page "This was another account of (username you want to use) but I don't use it anymore" if you like, to prevent any misunderstanding. An example would be my two alt accounts, User:Pharmboy and User:Farmer Brown. I used them, but redirect the talk pages only, to my main account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Okay, sounds good. I plan to only use the other account in the future (as it has far more of my edits, and rollback rights). Кощки123 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Vicekeeni2's topic ban clarified/expanded, and advice for avoiding violating it has been given. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)}}

User Viceskeeni2 refuses to engage in a proper discussion and have recently violated the 3 reverts rule on page Gata by doing a fourth revert. I plead moderators to take an action on him.

Athoremmes (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Because you reverted a sourced version of the article, we're discussing whether or not that version will stay or won't, however you keep doing disruptive edits by removing that version without any consensus being reached. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::So you're willing to edit war because you find yourself in the unique position of feeling you are right and they are wrong? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::No I'm not, I'm just saying that they have been removing a part of the article without there being any evidence on whether it's a right reason to or not and there has, yet, been no consensus reached. But alright sure, I wont edit again on the article until the discussion is finished Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Warnings placed at User talk:Viceskeeni2 and User talk:Song623. To {{ping|Athoremmes}}, {{ping|Viceskeeni2}}, and {{ping|Song623}} any further edit warring will be met with blocks. Get consensus on Talk:Gata (food). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Can we revert the article to the pre-consensus version before the consensus is reached? Athoremmes (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That would be the version where it states that its popular in Azerbaijan Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Concur with reversion to status quo ante bellum before this edit war began. Get consensus to move forward with this content first. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Before the edit war began, it was the article the way it is right now just without the fact that it's of Armenian origin Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not going to discuss content and make a decision on what is right and wrong. The article is back to its state before the edit war began. Get consensus on the talk page of the article before moving forward on this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is not, look at the history before the discussion began it included Azerbaijan Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So would you have me revert back to 28 May 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gata_(food)&diff=prev&oldid=959415797]? Would you have me decide what content is right and wrong? That is not an administrator's role. Our role is to stop the edit war. See also m:The Wrong Version; {{tq|"There are no reports of an administrator ever having [reverted to] the "right" version"}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::With pleasure Athoremmes (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter what version of the article stays up while a discussion takes place. What is important is that there should be a good-faith discussion on the article talk page based on reliable sources leading to a consensus version of the article. It would be perfectly reasonable for anyone to say, based on current evidence, that they have had enough of Armenian-Azerbaijani political bickering about a food, ffs, and ban one or both of you from such a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Do we actually have to put WP:GS/AA on food? We have to put GS/AA on food. Good gracious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't see that this is particularly surprising. Just like any aspects of culture, food can be a significant point of contention between neighbouring communities. There's no reason why people would care about whether Nikola Tesla is Croatian or Serbian or whatever; or for that matter all the disputes over whether someone is English/Irish/whatever or British; but not care about similar issues when it comes to food. When the communities are generally at most friendly rivals, the disputes can generally survive without too much problem e.g. Pavlova. When there are greater points of contention they can be more problematic e.g. the recent dispute at Rendang, or many food disputes involved Malaysian and Indonesia or Malaysia and Singapore (e.g. Yusheng). Still if the politics, relations and other stuff aren't enough to have resulted on a GS or CTOP, the food disputes will hopefully be likewise. But when relations between the communities are terrible enough that they need a CTOP or GS, unsurprisingly the disputes over food can do likewise. I'm sure this isn't the first in the Armenian-Azerbaijani area. Likewise there are surely a bunch in the Eastern European topic area, I mean even Chicken Kiev is affected and that isn't even a dispute on origins or linkage to a specific community. Likewise IPA. And for A-I, we have a whole article on Politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• The Gata edit-warring and 3RR violations isn't the only issue. Viceskeeni2 was blocked, then unblocked with a topic ban, and recently had his topic ban softened to just Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts, broadly construed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HouseBlaster&diff=next&oldid=1276275518]. During that discussion though, they were warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HouseBlaster&diff=prev&oldid=1276275518] against POV push in other areas of Armenia-Azerbijan, which they clearly have not followed as shown by the poorly sourced edit-wars in Gata.

:What is more concerning is that after all of this and being unblocked with topic ban then topics ban being softened, Viceskeeni2 still violated even this softened topic ban that they're currently bound by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=1281102957], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=1280319228&oldid=1278545968]. The first edit is a direct violation of their topic ban Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts, broadly construed. The second article is largely based on the conflict between First Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, which also makes it a violation. This isn't the first time Viceskeeni2 has violated a topics ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HouseBlaster&oldid=1261948138#Violation], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HouseBlaster&oldid=1261948138#Violation_2]. I believe it's time Viceskeeni2 behavior is reviewed by admins and they face sanctions, imo they're a net negative for this topic area and clearly unsuited to edit it or just follow softened restrictions. Even interacting on talk pages without throwing personal attacks every other comment is a challenge for them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gata_(food)&diff=prev&oldid=1281250067], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gata_(food)&diff=prev&oldid=1281332916]. Vanezi (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::The Religion in Azerbaijan edit is a clear-cut violation of the conditions imposed by HouseBlaster on February 17 (I'm not sure I see how the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic one is though). Honestly, even the editing at Gata is a violation of it in my opinion--claiming as Azerbaijani an Armenian cultural food is in a very literal sense part of the conflict. I didn't see this restriction logged at AE, otherwise I would have imposed the snapback sanction earlier. Topic-ban reimposed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rosguill they were already topic banned from AA conflicts, broadly construed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viceskeeni2&diff=prev&oldid=1276332678]. Your sanction has the same wording [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viceskeeni2&diff=prev&oldid=1281403132], was it intended to be this way or a broader tban like their original [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viceskeeni2&diff=prev&oldid=1258461630]? Vanezi (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah yes, my mistake, I misunderstood HouseBlaster's prescription. The topic ban is now for Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, full stop. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I clearly asked HouseBlaster for permission and he said editing on Gata isn't a violation. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately for you, I don't think you're going to be able to argue your way past the edit at Religion in Azerbaijan. But for the record, I don't think that {{u|HouseBlaster}} gave you license to revert 5 times in under 24 hours at Gata (food) or that they realized that you were heading straight into a contentious dispute by seeking to edit that page. The reverts alone (not to mention the wikilawyering now after the fact) are evidence that you are not prepared to edit these topics collegially. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::No I won't, even if it was accidental, it's a violation, I accept the punishment as long as it's not a total Wikipedia ban or anything and am sorry. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::My comment was purely that editing about the food of either country is not inherently about the conflict. It was not a license to do that sort of edit. My apologies that my WP:ROPE has led to this mess, and thank you to Rosguill for reimposing the topic ban. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Don't worry your decision didn't lead to it, it was my mistake. The editing on Gata didn't cause the topic ban, I forgot about the ban and edited on an article that violated it. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::The only thing there that really violates it I guess is the Aghdam mosque part, I'll remove that sure, I forgot it when editing, sorry for that. However, adding the name of Azerbaijan to it does definitely not violate anything, I didn't edit on the part that mention the conflict etc., only added the missing name. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::How about that rather than dance on the edge of your topic ban, you just avoid the area entirely? Keep this up, and it's likely your dancing will go astray and you'll find yourself blocked. It isn't worth it. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not "dancing on the edge of my topic ban". The religious edit is a violation, yes I admit it and I already accepted the punishment. However, me being punished and accused, of things that I haven't done that are similar to what I'm forbidden to do, is unfair. I edit on what I'm allowed to edit (except this one time, again sorry) Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{tq|"...that are similar to what I'm forbidden to do..."}} And there's the rub. You are doing things similar to what you are forbidden to do, and decrying responses to that as unfair. You put yourself in the situation of being subject to a topic ban. That you find it unfair to be viewed in this way isn't our fault. You are subject to a topic ban that is to be "broadly construed". How about you stay away from "similar" things and restrict yourself to editing things well beyond the "broadly construed"? There are ~7 million articles on this project. I'm sure you can find something else to do until this topic ban is removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The ban before wasn't broadly construed but ONLY to the conflict. I even asked the guy that set the block if I could edit on Gata (food) and he said YES. Now it's broadly construed, so I'll make sure to stay away from similar things too like the politics of the countries. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}} Of course you are dancing on the edge of the topic ban. That's how you accidentally violated it. Hammersoft gave you some good advice on how not to be blocked. There are many subjects that have no link whatsoever with Armenia or Azerbaijan. Why not edit articles on South American species of moth or villages in Thailand or Polish social media influencers? Or, if you are so interested in food, something that is eaten in West Africa? If you edited in any of these areas there would be no danger of violating your topic ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Probably because I don't know anything about South American species or Thai villages. But thanks for the advice ig Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Luckily for you, Wikipedia expects you to base contributions off of what is written in authoritative RS, not your personal knowledge. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = There is no consensus to lift the ban. Star Mississippi 16:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC) ETA noting also their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bensebgli#c-Bensebgli-20250321141400-W:AN request to withdraw] which happened before the close. Result is the same, but commend them for their awareness there. Star Mississippi 16:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

I'd like to appeal my block, please unblock me, and consider my request to post on WP:AN. This is my main account, but Hanshingling, OkuAli, ShriBhala Ji, BonzonElite SanjeevModdi, أسامة بن عبد الله وليد, & TonnyJ accounts were blocked for committing sockpuppetry. I admit all my past mistakes, including committing sockpuppetry, using ChatGPT for 2 talk page replies, and disruptive editing. I'm really ashamed for doing all these past mistakes. In the last 20-21 months, I didn't commit any sockpuppetry through the last CU run; it was confirmed by an admin.

On Hanshingling, I twice used ChatGPT for compiling replies to talk page notices, one to Abecedare's block notice and one to Kuru's notice. In 2022 ChatGPT was new; I wasn't aware that we should not use GPT for compiling any replies or writing on Wiki. My main account, Bensebgli, was blocked for disruptive editing on 27 April 2023. In my recent unblock appeal, two admins who blocked my sock accounts (Abecedare & Dough Weller) agreed only on the condition that if I accepted TBAN in the WP:GSCASTE area, then it would be okay for my account to be unblocked; otherwise, it would not. Which I first refused to accept, but after reading WP: GSCASTE and other TBAN conditions, I'm okay with TBAN. Kindly unblock me and lend me a last chance to earn the Wikipedia community's trust through my productive contributions.

I'd request to involved and uninvolved admins kindly consider my unblock request. If you guys can give me a last chance to return, I'll follow all the guidelines, and I'll follow my TBAN whatever community you impose against my account, and through my clean/productive contributions, I'll prove that your given chance was an opportunity.'If I'll be unblocked, I'd like to contribute to BLP, Media, Entertainment, Sport, Science, Transport, Geography, History, Technology, Education, LGBTQ, or Medical fields. '}} Bensebgli (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC) {{small|(Copied over from their talk page. Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC))}}

• Note: Link to the relevant SPI and see here for an overview of the editor's block history. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The user first should disclose every account they have had. Concerns have been raised by me, Abecedare as well as {{ping|DreamRimmer}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anujror/Archive#c-DreamRimmer-20231107112500-DreamRimmer-20231022052900] that Bensebgli was connected to a previous sockfarm (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnbendenz) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bensebgli#c-Abecedare-20250223191000-Bensebgli-20250223160200], contrary to their claim that they have not socked for 21 months, they were suspected to have been socking using IP addresses (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A2404%3A3100%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F32&type=block block log] of Special:Contributions/2404:3100:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) as recently as June. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1227397930] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pors&diff=1227760494&oldid=1227398360]. Bensebgli must also explain if they have any links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anujror/Archive, which is a sockfarm known for extensive sockpuppetry to push Gurjar POV across caste articles exactly the same thing which got Bensebgli and their created sockpuppet accounts blocked. NXcrypto Message 04:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Bensebgli has issued the following replies to your oppose on their talk (as they are currently blocked from editing). I am copying them here, {{u|NXcrypto}}. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I have already disclosed all my accounts. In my recent comments, I already explained Johnbendenz or Anujror are not related to my account in any sense. If anyone wants to examine CU or other tests, I can help CU admin in this test. Johnbendenz first edited in May 2022, one year before me, on Wikipedia. But I started editing from March 2023 onward July 2023, on Wikipedia through my Bensebgli and sock accounts; those were all blocked in July 2023. Anujror has also been editing Wikipedia for the last 3-4 years. We can check their edit history, and Anujror's investigation page is full of evidence that this user is still today committing sockpuppetry, and he is not linked to my account in any sense. Also, this or other IPs are blocked for continuing spam and socking from different groups. Any IP is not blocked as a sock of Bensebgli by any admin. I didn't commit sockpuppetry through any account or IP in the last 20-21 months. Bensebgli (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::(there were pings at the start of the message that I have removed as I've already pinged NXCrypto above) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} I have already disclosed all my accounts and admitted my past mistakes. Anuj and Johnbendens are not related to my account. These two sock groups started editing Wikipedia from 2022 one year before myself. John didn't edit after 27 may 2022 but Anujror and his 20+ sock accounts are blocked. On Anuj's SPI case page there are 3-4 accounts listed for investigation. Anujror is still busy in commiting sockpuppetry he is also not related to my account in any sense. To be honest I'm not a robot or an alien it is not possible for myself to be present or commit sockpuppetry using 2-3 sock groups at a same time.
• :::1.1 Johnbendenz edited from 20 may 2022 to 27th may 2022 his sock account edited from 23 may to 27 may 2022 one Year before myself. I started editing from my very first account (Bensebgli) and sock accounts from 28 march 2023 to 19 July 2023. After 19 July 2023 I didn't commit any sockpuppetry through any new account or IP. Johnbendenz belong to different sock group not to my account in any sense.
• :::1.2 Anujror account started editing from 12 April 2022 his edits were mostly on Ror caste related articles and continued editing till 13 July 2022 after block of sock accounts of Anujror (Anuj Haryana, Anuj Ror Haryana 08) he started editing on Gujar caste related articles through new accounts. These claims can be confirmed by checking their edit history. Anujror's SPI case page is full of complexities dozen of users are blocked as Anuj's sock. On SPI case page 3-4 accounts are listed as suspected socks of Anujror. Anujror started editing from 8 April 2022 one year before my editing on Wikipedia he is senior and experienced then me just like Johnbendenz. I'm different from these sock groups and not related to these two sock groups. When I said and repeated I didn't commit sockpuppetry for last 20-21 months in (someway this claim was confirmed when PhilKnight _{deactivated ping as was already pinged on User talk MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️}} ran CU test against my unblock request that Bensebgli didn't commit sockpuppetry for last 6-7 months).
• :::1.3 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?page=User%3A2404%3A3100%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F32&title=Special:Log&type=block This block log itself explained this IP and it's wider range was blocked] first by MJ Mitchell on 24 march 2024 for spamming. 2nd time this IP is blocked by Ponyo on 25 February 2025 for spamming & socking. I can ping Ponyo _{deactivated ping as was already pinged on User talk MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️}} or anyone else can do by themselves Ponyo can explain this IP is not blocked as sock of Bensebgli. Bensebgli (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support for unblock with TBAN from WP:GSCASTE-area, broadly construed. I have my doubts that this will work out, because the editor's past socks and even recent unblock requests have been deceptive (can expand if needed), but am okay with giving them another chance. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support - it's been a while and they seem to have learned from their mistakes. I don't see a problem with an unblock because they can very easily be re-blocked should they violate our rules again, I think they seem very genuinely sorry and deserve a bit of WP:ROPE and a second chance. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - The battleground mentality shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bensebgli&diff=prev&oldid=1279247177 right here] gives me enough confidence that this editor will remain net-negative for this project. Dympies (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Talk page response from blocked editor:
  Please you can explain in which sense do you think anything in my reply to NXcrypto was related to battleground mentality?
  When NXcrypto first linked my account with too many stale and even with active other sock groups I calmy replied to all his questions and doubts. He recommended me that I should take my case at AN according to him more than one my sock account was blocked. I replied him that my unblock request was answered and responded by the admins those block my sock accounts and they clearly said they're okay with my unblock under TBAN condition and when my request was rightly answered on right time then recommendations of taking my case at AN is not a valid recommendation in this reply nothing was related to battleground mentality or offensive or even rude. But later admin himself asked me to take my case at AN replying that any single admin's decision cannot unblock my account until other admin's involvement then I asked him to post my request at AN.
  But I can only reply at this point that anything was clearly not offensive or battle ground mentality like words I used in any of my reply to any users on my talk page. Instead I calmly answer every questions of NXcrypto and admins. Because I'm aware that Wikipedia work on mutual collaboration of different editors and we have to respect other editors regardless of their gender, ethnicity, nationality or religion. I hope this reply will clear all your doubts at good that nothing was bad/hurting in my reply but if you still believe when I said NXcrypto's recommendations are invalid 'this reply if hurt you then I'm really sorry for being ignorant and little bit rude. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 22:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support for unblock with TBAN from WP:GSCASTE area broadly construed. I share User:Abecedare's concerns. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per bad faith aspersions cast at the talkpage as well as earlier deceptive appeals. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bensebgli#Standard_unblock_request][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bensebgli&diff=prev&oldid=1279247177] I don't think the user is disclosing all of their accounts. Since this user hasn't done anything outside caste subjects, I don't see any benefit in having them on Wiki. Koshuri ^(グ) 06:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Blocked and Locked Star Mississippi 16:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

I think the work with the new Account is not better, please block the new sock. WikiBayer (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Patience pays|1=Speedy deletion processed. Now how about that pizza... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)}}

so, @Simon2920q8394 is an user who was recently blocked for creating a bunch of redundant articles about FNAF animations I guess. But that's the problem, all the non notable articles are still up there even though the user responsible for it has been blocked. For example, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monika_vs_FNAF!%3F this]. Can an administrator just look into this user's edit history and delete all the articles marked for speedy deletion? They've been up for way too long. Thanks Yelps :) talk 18:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like they're all gone now. Speedy deletion works, it just isn't as speedy as you might want (admins have to do due diligence on such requests). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

@Zemen disruptive user edit warring on Arabization of Kirkuk, removing sourced edits. Relentless reverting. Will most likely continue to revert edits. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabization_of_Kirkuk&diff=prev&oldid=1281512112][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabization_of_Kirkuk&diff=prev&oldid=1281607617][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabization_of_Kirkuk&diff=prev&oldid=1281608286] Montblamc1 (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Your edits were not neutral. The article says "Arabization of a city", which several sources say was a Kurdish and Turkmen city and was Arabized; do you call the settlement of its indigenous people Kurdification? this is not Kurdification and is a different matter. If you think this city has been Kurdized, write a new article entitled "Kurdification of Kirkuk". or you can take this to Kurdification, which has a separate section for your writing.  Zemen  (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::You seem to be contradicting yourself. Contrary to what you are saying now, you apparently do not have a problem with the edits that include the Kurdification of Kirkuk since 2003 in the “implementation” section because you have not removed this, but instead, first you removed the part in the overview section that included the Kurdification of Kirkuk during 2014-2017 that you claimed was not sourced properly (even though the article includes the sources that document the Kurdification of Kirkuk) as well as the parts that included the well-documented (by HRW and Amnesty) incidents of Peshmerga and Asayish committing human rights violations. Even after a source was included in the overview section, you still reverted it. I am not convinced at all that your removal of these parts are not motivated by a high degree of bias and desire to keep the article in line with your own narrative. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. Your removal of these edits is not justifiable at all. Montblamc1 (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Montblamc1 Why are you editing while logged out? Why are you hiding your identity? Despite all the warnings on your talk page, you still haven’t learned that every article has a talk page where you can raise your concerns? Sikorki (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there evidence of WP:LOUTSOCKING? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::When he added the word 'semi' to 'Kurdistan region' I recognized it was him even before this edit war started, since he’s the only one who does that see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_Kurdistan&diff=prev&oldid=1257030053 [1]] and now he’s doing it again while logged out [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabization_of_Kirkuk&diff=prev&oldid=1281328512 [2]]. His recent edits on the Arabization of Kirkuk seem to justify the Arabization occurring there, which might explain why he hides his identity.Sikorki (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Weird. the user tagged me again on WP:AN/I#Disruptive edits and complained about the same situation.  Zemen  (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, there are now two discussions going on about this matter, one here and one on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top|Edit request was completed. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, I'm sorry if this is out of order but I just published The Signpost and put up a request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages for a publication alert. It hasn't happened yet according to one of our readers. Is there any way to move this along? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure who would know about this who frequents the AN board but I do see JPxG and xaosflux had edited either the talk page or the main page and might know something. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've gone ahead and added the notice, but I wouldn't mind having an admin more experienced with watchlist notices double check me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Looks good. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Atop|There's no good reason to have brought this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)}}

This [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Rhoades&diff=prev&oldid=1282175622 article] is constantly being censored by some users. Thanks ARKH (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

{{atop

| result = No further action is needed at the moment. No support for reinstating TurboSuperA's close of the RFC at Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Continued WP:IDHT-conduct by TurboSuperA's may lead to sanctions; please heed the feedback instead. Abecedare (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: TurboSuperA+ has flounced. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1282141329] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

I am opening a close review for my following close [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War#RFC_on_the_infobox_content].

There was an ANI regarding my behaviour,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#TurboSuperA+_closes] but not a single close review. The ANI was closed with a consensus that all of my closes can be reverted. There was no such consensus in the ANI.

The content of my closes was never contested. Now editors who are unhappy with the close (without having any policy objections) are reopening discussions in hopes of a different close result.

Here's two other closes that were reverted by participating editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kshatriya&diff=prev&oldid=1277565411] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayagraj&diff=prev&oldid=1276790785] They are still not closed (and approaching archiving without resolution).

But if there really was consensus on ANI to reopen all of my closes (based on no discussion of closes themsleves) then I will reopen every RFC I closed myself, because I'm tired of getting notifications about it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 02:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:WP:STICK. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Doesn't apply here, I am asking for a close review of my own close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::WP:BITE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} Turbo, the entire point of that ANI was contesting the content of your closes. And as the closing admin of that discussion, yes, there was consensus that those closures could be overturned if desired. It was desired. They were overturned. Are you really sure you want to go down this road? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"Turbo, the entire point of that ANI was contesting the content of your closes."}}

::Actually it wasn't. This makes me wonder how closely you read the discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::And if it was about content, then why was the topic at ANI, which is for behavioural issues and not content issues? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Things are not either/or. Your behavior regarding the content was why it was at ANI. The fact you still don't get this means either you refuse to understand or can't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The outcome of my closes wss never disputed, btw. The complaints were all "procedural" as the editors themselves admitted.

:::::I don't think a single procedural mistake should result in a TBAN. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:With the addendum the ANI thread found that while there isn't consensus for blanket reversion, either a new discussion can be started or any of your closes can be reverted by an editor in good standing. This doesn't really concern you since you can't challenge these reversion of your closes as there is existing consensus that allows it and I assume weren't a participant in the reopened discussions since you closed them. So it's more a matter of courtesy and if you don't want editors to notify you, I suggest you put a notice at the top of your talk page and/or add an editor notice asking editors not to inform you if they revert your close. It's possible some editors may still accidentally include you in a list of editors to notify especially if you did for some reason leave a comment in the discussion before it was closed and also if editors are simply pinging you. If it bothers you that much turning off pings might help. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::To be clear, IMO what you're asking for is invalid. You cannot challenge the reversion/removal of you close since there is consensus it can be done. If you disagree there is consensus you should be challenging the close of the ANI rather than the reversion of your close based on it. You could also try to find a new consensus allowing you to challenge reversion of your closes but that seems unlikely to succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also if you're getting notified due to undos of your closes you can turn off notifications for reversion of your edits. This will affect all reversions, that can't be helped since the WMF isn't likely to want to spend the time to somehow differentiate between reversions of closes, and other reversions. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"can be reverted by an editor in good standing.""}}

::Even an involved editor unhappy with the result? Seems like bypassing of policies and established ways of doing things to me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• As I said in the discussion on their talk page after the topic ban when I disengaged due to his continued WP:IDHT and increasing belligerence: TurboSuperA+ is not compatible with a collaborative project. Their refusal to drop the stick and continued refusal or inability to understand make this very clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::As a reference, this is that discussion The Bushranger is referring to. I don't think we need to be flirting with a block for this editor. But it is recommended, TurboSuperA+, that you move on from this activity since you do have a topic ban. It's best to find some other activity on the project that you find equally engaging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm a bit frustrated because I did everything asked of me in the ANI thread and stil got an indefinite TBAN.

:::* I self-reverted closes in question, as was asked of me.

:::* I said I won't close any more discussions, giving myself a self-imposed TBAN.

:::* I applogised for my mistakes.

:::And despite saying in the OP that if I agree to stop closing discussions we can avoid a TBAN, @Voorts still petitioned The Bushranger to give me an indefinite TBAN. Why?

:::Why say one thing then do another? It's petty and vindictive.

:::The only three people to respond to this topic are all editors involved in the ANI. I would like a review by an independent Administrator.

:::How do I do that? Another AN thread? ArbCom?

:::{{tq|"It's best to find some other activity on the project that you find equally engaging."}}

:::I tried helping out at WP:DRN but I think @Robert McClenon feels I stepped on their turf so they began reverting my RfC closes. I got a TBAN because of good faith RfC closes.

:::Wikipedia is unwelcoming, anywhere you try to contribute, there's editors who watch that part of Wikipedia and will report you to SPI, take you to ANI, ask an Admin to block you, etc.

:::I have only had a four month account, but apparently WP:BITE and WP:AGF doesn't apply in my case. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{EC}} I didn't participate in the ANI thread and you and have only read parts of it. I am aware that editors expressed concerns with you before opening the ANI but felt your responses to their concerns weren't satisfactory so I guess it was only in ANI where you started to suggest you'd do better. This is always a concern since editors should not need to be taken to ANI to start to do better. Also generally if an editor has shown signs of improvement and is promising to stay away from the problem area but editors feel it's better to go ahead with the formal topic ban, it's because editors don't trust them and feel a formalised situation where they will have to appeal to the community before they can go back to the area they were causing problems is the better solution. Without having looked much into your previous behaviour and the concerns expressed in the ANI, their judgment seems sound since you opened this thread and even after everyone told you it was a terrible idea, you're persisting with it. It seems clear you're still not learning that your closures generally fell well outside what the community expects and still at a minimum going to waste the communities time defending them. In fact, you now seem to be WP:Casting aspersions i.e. making personal attacks by suggesting Robert McClenon only reverted your close because of your involvement at DRN with AFAICT absolutely no evidence for this other than timing. This strongly suggests in the absence of a topic ban, you'd be back making poor closures in a few weeks or months. It also suggests there are wider issues with your behaviour that the topic ban is not going to resolve hence why we might need to consider something wider i.e. probably a site block or ban. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"by suggesting Robert McClenon only reverted your close because of your involvement at DRN"}}

:::::Not only because of that, he was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cinderella157#RFC_on_the_infobox_content_question pointed to the thread] (I guess pinging Admins when unhappy with a close on an RfC you started rather than go to AN isn't Adminshopping)

:::::Robert admitted in the ANI thread he didn't look at the close, but he was complaining because someone else told him to: {{tq|"I came to this thread because I was pinged by User:Cinderella157 about another RFC close: at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I haven't looked at the closes in depth"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#c-Robert_McClenon-20250228030100-Voorts-20250228015800 link]

:::::{{tq|"I wasn't questioning that close. I was reporting that I was requested to look at that close"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#c-Robert_McClenon-20250228173400-TurboSuperA+-20250228054500 link]

:::::So am I crazy here, or did Robert McClenon revert a close he himself said he isn't questioning? I don't see any rationalisation or explanation of the revert that would suggest Robert had actually looked at the close and deemed it inadequate/faulty/lacking. What's going on here?

:::::{{tq|"probably a site block or ban."}}

:::::Frankly, I am tired that the only way some editors know how to have a conversation on Wikipedia is by threatening blocks and bans. I am here complaining that it is an unwelcoming environment where a new editor gets slapped with accusations and sanctions at the first mistake. And now you're telling me I have made another mistake (one an editor with 20 year of experience wouldn't make) and that I am in danger of a site block/ban because of it.

:::::Have an SPI case and CheckUser run on me because my edits seemed "too experienced for a 4 month editor".

:::::Get a TBAN from closing because I am "not experienced enough".

:::::A new user simply can't win and everything is stacked against them. So fine, site ban me and prove my point. See if I care. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} BTW, there's no such thing as review by an independent admin for many reasons including that "review" and even closing discussions isn't an admin power. If you want to challenge a close WP:CLOSECHALLENGE outlines what you should do. Since you've already asked BushRanger about it, the next step if you're certain there is merit to challenge it, is open a thread here. Remember that you can only challenge a close because there's a problem with the close like it not reflecting consensus. You cannot challenge a close because you feel the consensus was wrong or unjustified. As I said below, you really should have done that ASAP rather than continuing with this thread but whatever, if you really want to do it, I suggest you withdraw this appeal now and open a new thread challenging Bushranger's close and as I also said below, only reply if someone asks you to. Note that, despite having not read the discussion enough to comment, I'm 90% sure that your challenge will fail since Bushranger's close likely reflects consensus well enough so I strongly recommend against it. Also if you have questions over wikipedia processes like how to challenge a close, you really should be asking somewhere appropriate like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk rather than opening AN threads. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"I suggest you withdraw this appeal"}}

:::::I have a TBAN from closing discussions, remember? So even if I wanted to close this, I'm not allowed to. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I didn't say to close it. That would be unwise with so many comments even without a topic ban, and frankly the fact you didn't understand that is more reason why it's unwise for you to be making closes. I said to withdraw it, that doesn't require a close. I chose my words carefully to avoid such silly misintepretations. Anyone else is free to close it if they felt it necessary after you withdraw it or maybe we'd just stop replying until it was automatically archived. I mean technically someone could take it up themselves, but I find this incredibly unlikely not least because even if someone did want to question the reversion of your close, this thread is way too messy to do it. It'd be better for them to open a new thread. Once you've withdrawn your proposal, stop paying attention to this thread and definitely stop replying. There's always a risk a thread may developed into a boomerang and if you started the thread it's assumed you're paying attention. So technically you should normally pay some minor attention even after withdrawing. But I'll make you a one time offer. I'll pay attention to this thread and if real talk of sanctions against you develop, I'll notify you if that and you can check it out again. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}} Sorry I forgot to mention a key point. Note that any review you request of the closure will be assessed by all editors in good standing who wish to participate rather than just admins, with the opinions of editors uninvolved in the discussion and especially closure generally given more weight. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::My problem is that so far not one of my closes had been up for close review. ANI is for incidents that need quick attention and editors who are being disruptive.

::::::After I received complaints on my Talk page, I made no further closes, so there was no immediate danger of disruption/vandalism.

::::::I went straight from complaint -> ANI -> TBAN. Why was there not a single close review done? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"Remember that you can only challenge a close because there's a problem with the close like it not reflecting consensus."}}

:::::Nobody ever complained about the outcome of my close, they admitted it was "procedural". The only close that has been reclosed so far had the same outcome. The ANI against me was based on me not reverting my close when Voorts asked me to (I didn't know I had to)

:::::{{tq|"You cannot challenge a close because you feel the consensus was wrong or unjustified."}}

:::::Please, please, please, take a look at my close linked in the title of this ANI, and tell me it doesn't reflect consensus, because I'm pretty sure it does. So why was it reverted? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Turbo, I have nothing against you personally and think you have the potential to be a good contributor here. In my view, your indefinite topic ban is necessary because your closes did not accurately reflect consensus (for example, in the one purprotedly under review here, only one editor cited COMMONNAME and that policy clearly doesn't apply here), you clearly don't take criticism well, and you still don't seem to understand what went wrong here. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::What's the point of an indef TBAN after I have already said I won't close any more discussions? Other than to get a block on my record and prejudice other editors against me in the future? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I believe a TBAN is needed because you could have reneged on that promise at any time. Any prejudice is because of the way you're handling this (combative, long walls of text, commenting on others' motives, etc.). As I said before, I think you can be a productive member of this community. You need to slow down and stay away from contentious areas. My recommendation is to focus on something else, like trying to get an article to GA, and try to rebuild your reputation. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::An Admin complains about my RfC close, I disagree -> I get a TBAN.

::I complain about an Admin's close, the closing Admin disagrees -> I get sanctioned.

::I thought Administrators weren't privileged members of Wikipedia but it is becoming obvious rules don't apply the same way. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::AFAICT, you haven't been sanctioned for disagreeing with a close. Since no one agrees with your problems with the close, and you haven't even appealed the close to AN but instead after asking Bushranger about it, you've allowed it to stand while making this weird appeal despite the close still standing, if you continue down this weird path you might very well be sanctioned which seems to be what editors are saying. If other editors hadn't agreed with editor's concerns over your closures, and these editor had continued to push it incessantly, they would have been sanctioned too. Frankly by this stage since you've opened this silly appeal and continue to argue over it, there is a chance if you formally appeal Bushranger's close you might be sanctioned. But I think if you make a simple appeal and do not reply anymore unless someone directly asks you to reply, you'll probably be fine. But you're cutting it awful fine. Ultimately it's always the case that if one editor or a small number of editors feel something, but consensus is against them, these editors need to let it go or they will be sanctioned. This includes admin, but most admins know that, so do drop it before any sanctions are forthcoming. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|"but consensus is against them,"}}

::::You think that I am complaining because I disagree, no, I am complaining because the close of the ANI 1) doesn't reflect consensus, 2) shows a lack of understanding of the issue on the part of the closer, 3) there was never a close review of my closes, so how do we know they're "bad"? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• The creation of this thread by TurboSuperA is akin to escaping the lion's den, only to then re-enter it to try and retrieve one's hat. I therefore think it would be best for it to be closed. Daniel (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :It is indeed a very WP:BITEy environment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That was not what I meant by my comment; I personally think it was ill-judged for you to return to a noticeboard to reignite debate on this topic. Daniel (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{User|TurboSuperA+}}, I'll keep this short in the hope that you won't misinterpret it. Stop wasting editors' time with discussions such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::I am doing this because I don't think editors should waste time relitigating and reclosing discussions that have a non-controversial and undisputed close.

::Two of my closes that had been reverted three weeks ago are still waiting on a close. I am guessing they won't be closed before they expire.

::I got punished for doing something nobody else wanted to do. How does that help improve Wikipedia?

::One close that was reverted and closed again had the same outcome. I am gonna go out on a limb and say that all of my reverted closes will be closed with the same outcome.

::Who's wasting editors time? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That's nothing to do with you. If any editor in good standing felt the actions were improper, they're welcome to open a discussion. It's not up to you to decide for other editors what is a waste of their or anyone else's time if they feel it's better your closers are re-closed by someone else. No one is asking you to do the re-closing, or spend any time on anything related. In fact that's precisely what we don't want you doing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name| Reopened 21 days ago], discussion bludgeoned and there's 4-5 IPs whose only Wikipedia edit is a !vote in that RfC. Nobody has closed the RfC yet.

::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kshatriya#RfC:_Should_we_mention_%22Rajputs%22_as_most_successful_claimants_of_Kshatriya_status?| Reopened 23 days ago] by a participating editor who is unhappy with the close, despite another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#c-LukeEmily-20250305164100-Dympies-20250305011300| endorsing the close]: {{tq|"@TurboSuperA+:, this closure was perfectly fine. There was nothing new being added and most comments were completely ignoring the opposing views. Well summarized by you as WP:NPOV"}} Nobody has closed this discussion yet either. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Just noticed that despite it being Robert McClenon's who's action they were challenging and despite them saying above "{{tqi|I think @Robert McClenon feels I stepped on their turf so they began reverting my RfC closes}}", TurboSuperA+ never actually notified Robert McClenon and didn't even ping them until they started to cast aspersions, not that pinging is enough. So I've now done so. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::They reverted the close after saying they didn't look at the close. I guess some editors are so experienced they know what to do without looking. Amazing. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• The WP:ASPERSIONS and lack of good faith on display here cannot ignored and needs to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Says the person who [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive#22_February_2025 reported] me to SPI without evidence, without a single diff. Even though you knew I wasn't a sockpuppet account, you didn't retract your accusation, but wasted Admin/CheckUser time anyway. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I reported you to SPI because I believed you were a sock, and other editors had similar concerns. That’s how the process works. What remains unclear is how the SPI process relates to the behavioral issues you are displaying here. Nemov (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = There is no further action needed or possible here. Master Jay has resigned the tools. Any necessary discussion can continue at WT:RECALL or wherever else may be helpful. Star Mississippi 01:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

File:Information icon4.svg The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Master Jay for Master Jay to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for {{pronoun|Master Jay|obj}} to maintain {{pronoun|Master Jay|pos}} toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. win8x (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'll admit that I likely don't know enough about this new version of this new process, but should someone who commented in the discussion be closing the discussion? Also, is it still just a matter of getting to 25, or are opposers comments weighed in the closure? Yes, I probably could go click on the policy, but I'm curious what the current community interpretation of the policy is. Thanks in advance. - jc37 03:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Jc37 It's mostly about Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 2#Early closure, where people agreed that the petition can be closed as soon as it reached 25 signatures. I didn't provide any closing comment nor did I sign the petition, so I thought it would be okay for me to close it anyway. There's not really anything else that would've happened. Opposers are not considered, which also why I thought it would be fine for me to close; there's no assessing consensus. It's a matter of getting 25, which it has. win8x (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's automatic at 25 supports. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::The only thing the person closing the petition must do is verify that all signatories are extended confirmed; I think the "straightforward cases" clause applies here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 08:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's just another ill-thought out process that's become all the rage lately. A recall petition that opens and closes in less than five hours. I guess admins aren't allowed to sleep. Sure, Jay was up and on the project when this started. But, the reason it was started was due to inactivity. Yet, it closed in less than five hours. Unreal. Nevermind that according to our policies and guidelines, Jay didn't do anything wrong to prompt this. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Similar to people gaming the system to get to ECR. Perhaps they didn't violate the letter of any policy or guideline, but the right gets removed anyway. Here, we have an admin who didn't admin (or really edit) for many years, then promised to increase activity when they would get desysopped, yet didn't follow through on their promise. They have every right to go for a RRFA, but instead have retired (while keeping the admin bit for as long as possible), apparently valuing the admin title more than simply editing and helping Wikipedia. As for the process being "all the rage lately", the previous one was 4 months ago, and this is only the third in total. I don't get why this is considered such a big deal, we have many user groups with automatic expiry, or which can be removed after a short discussion. Why admins (or in this case admins-in-name-only) should get some special protection as if that badge is superspecial and untouchable is not clear, but it gives the impression of "closing ranks" by a few vocal admins unhappy about the process. Fram (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So you feel a process to remove a privilege is ok if it opens and closes within five hours, giving little or no opportunity for the subject of the request to respond? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The real decision gets made at the RRfA or the administrator election, just like for anyone else who wants to be an admin, if Master Jay so decides. You use the word "privilege" but the rest of your statements seem to treat adminship as a right. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The subject of the request did respond. The subject of the request also had more than five years, not merely five hours, to make good on their pledge to return to active editing. Hammersoft, we all know where you stand on recall, but this case is not the cause célèbre you seem to believe it is. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::What's happening is is a conflation of the process with the target of this process in this iteration. I'm referring to the process alone. This case highlights the massive hole in the process, but I'm talking about the process and not the case. Having a process where a person targeted in that process has less than five hours to respond is flat wrong. The process needs to be fixed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::They can respond at any time during the recall, and if they are going to RRfA they have thirty days from the closure of the recall to respond and craft statements. In the past the recalls have proceeded based on handling of discussions and noticeboard threads so this situation is a bit different, but it's not as if they were unaware of the concerns for years. They also did not follow through on their commitment to return to active editing and continued the gaming that had been called out prior. What would more hours before opening the recall have done? Either someone stops at their talk page and says "if you don't resign you'll be recalled" or someone demands the same commitments that weren't met the last time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Rather déja vu of the Tony the Marine situation here. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::3 recalls in 5 months of the process existing is hardly {{tq|all the rage}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously. I'm not referring to just this process. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Forgive me, but I'm not the slightest bit sure what else is supposed to be obvious to me here. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hammersoft has also been quite vocal about admin elections. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:There's got to be a better way. I'm not talking about the 5 hours, but about communicating the real minimum expectations. Write down somewhere that if X years go by and you're only doing the bare minimum to keep the right, you'll start being held to a higher standard, even if you're not causing problems. What I wonder is, if someone proposes X change to adminship policies and there's consensus against that change, can people who just want to enforce their own standards for adminship that don't have consensus use the recall process -- which doesn't factor opposition into the equation -- to try to enforce their perspective anyway? Putting a finer point on it, if some group of 25 people decides activity requirements should be higher, what's to prevent that group from badgering admins who meet the requirement that has very broad consensus but not the unofficial requirement? (I'm getting a little hypothetical -- not looking for "but also did you see this diff from Jay"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::The petition doesn't remove anything, RRfA does. If the view of that group doesn't represent consensus, then the admin will pass RRfA. The stress they'll go through doing that process is a flaw with recall, though. win8x (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Actual admin gaming the system to keep their admin bit: shrug. Hypothetical group of 25 editors gaming the system to get rid of admins: panic! Fram (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think part of the issue is there is no hard and fast limit, but over a decade of inactivity with just enough edits to keep the permission which included raising their activity level to the new minimum threshold and not making good on a commitment to return to activity falls far enough foul of WP:GAMING that it spurred some action. This isn't an example of picking a low activity or inactive admin and removing the tools for no reason, it's an example of the community removing the tools from someone whose only edits in a very long time were GAMING. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::People keep linking to WP:GAMING as though it's self-evident. We have a concrete minimum. If someone is meeting that minimum -- even over a long period of time -- without any evidence of bad faith or disruption, why is that gaming the system? If that behavior isn't ok, say so in a policy somewhere (it's entirely possible I've missed somewhere that it is indeed written down clearly FWIW). Don't make the minimum pieces of flair 15 and then call bad faith when someone only wears 15 pieces of flair. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Apparently for most of us it is self-evident in this case though. "If that behavior isn't ok, say so in a policy somewhere"... er, WP:GAMING does exactly that (guideline, not policy, but people get sanctioned for violating guidelines all the time, and getting a right removed which you haven't used in 5 years and barely used in 15 years is hardly a sanction anyway). Fram (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::If there's such strong consensus that routinely meeting only the minimum number is gaming the system, why avoid documenting that anywhere? I wouldn't even oppose that; what I oppose is assuming it's self-evident that minimums aren't actually minimums. Also {{tq|Actual admin gaming the system to keep their admin bit: shrug. Hypothetical group of 25 editors gaming the system to get rid of admins: panic!}} - I know you mean this as sarcastic/snide, but yes. Actual admin harming absolutely nothing while contributing almost nothing: shrug. Group of editors forcing that admin out with no evidence of harm, holding them to a higher standard than we actually communicate: bad. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Losing adminship is not being forced out. Most editors are not admins. CMD (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::On the subject of evidence of harm, given that the admin in this case had contributed almost nothing for 15 years, what harm is done by their no longer being an admin any more? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Bad-faith wikilawyering – arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy.}} The principle of the admin inactivity policy is to make sure admins are active members of the community who are up-to-date on the current culture and norms. Specifically making just enough edits to follow the letter of the policy while not actually following through on why the policy exists is gaming.

::::{{tq|Making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level}}. Does this need further elaboration? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes. At Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. At the top of that section, something like "Activity requirements ensure administrators are up-to-date on current policies, guidelines, and norms." and then immediately following the ordered list, something like "While administrators who routinely make only the minimum number required to retain the user right will not be automatically desysopped, a recall petition may be used to determine whether that admin is sufficiently engaged to understand current policies, guidelines, and norms." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'd support that addition. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{reply|Rhododendrites}} That's a good idea. Of course, for such an important policy page, even a bold edit would probably be a bit too bold, but it's something I could support in a RfC. Will you fire it up. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::+1 to this addition. – robertsky (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{+1}} -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Rhododendrites, I worry a bit that this wording will lead to the exact problem others have described or hinted at - that an admin who is largely inactive, but still fully complying with the activity requirements, is recalled for basically no reason other than "25 people think, against consensus, that our activity requirements should be higher". In this particular recall case, we have someone who had promised to be more active, and additionally had also been a bit of a dick about it. I have no problem with this one. But if we're going to recall people simply "to determine whether that admin is sufficiently engaged", well... that's a big step up from our current procedural removal numbers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"additionally had also been a bit of a dick about it" alludes to an aspect that for some reason has not been mentioned in the focus on activity, the poor communication that accompanied that inactivity, not participating at the BN for the resysop, and accusing Sitush of sockpuppetry. Communication is WP:ADMINACCT, which is something the community values. I suspect that this wouldn't have gone to Recall so fast, nor if it did would it have received 25 signatures that quickly, if there had been the slightest indication of the editor wanting to communicate with the community or be otherwise accountable. CMD (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think that's a good addition. Admin tools are a privileged that is earned, and should require effort to maintain. I don't think the risk of a largely inactive admin account being hacked is particularly high, but removing privileges of inactive admins is nevertheless a good security measure. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::The petition doesn’t remove anything. It initiates a process during which the community can decide. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:"Legacy account" needs to be considered a personal attack if it isn't. The 26th signature was wholly unnecessary. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::(ec) Agreed that it was unnecessary. Referring to someone as an account instead a person is poor form. Useight (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Not just that, but the use of "legacy" as a direct substitute for "outdated". ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Reading the discussion, that whole nomination toom appears to have been POINTy and to make an example (the admin's name came up is discussion of minimum number of expected edits, and prompted the review, no indication of any misuse of the broom otherwise), which is not how we should be defining standards. If the community wants higher standards (eg more active admin), start an RFC to raise the bar. The review process should only be triggered based on actual admin actions that may be controversial to the community, otherwise it's going to prompt for more cases that, even if they are dismissed at an RRFA, wastes everyone's time. — Masem (t) 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. I thought the recall process was for bad admins, not merely undeserving ones. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::"Any extended confirmed editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." Apparently "the community", or at least a large enough portion of it, doesn't trust an admin who lost their adminship for inactivity already twice, regained it because bureacrat's felt they had no choice, even if they didn't believe the editor to be deserving to remain an admin in 2019 alreadyv, promised to become more active, and again became a non-active admin. They were perhaps not a bad admin, they simply weren't an admin at all, and this has now been officialized. Time is mainly being wasted by people (aminly admins) bemoaning the process because for some reason this admin should have been protected from it, as it is so important that they keep the title. Feel free to give them a shiny barnstar and bestow upon them the "emeritus-admin" honorary title if it makes you or them feel any better. But whining about a process because it desysoped someone who wasn't a real sysop anyway seems unproductive. Fram (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it makes no perceptible difference to anyone but MasterJay whether MasterJay is a sysop or not, so I am not complaining that he will be desysopped. I am complaining that this was treated like an emergency in immediate need of resolution (it clearly wasn't) and that the obvious other moves (reaching out to MasterJay on his talk page or just waiting until he would probably be desysopped by the 5/100 rule in a few months) were not even contemplated. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Recall can take up to a month, and he won't be desysop'd for another month still, so I don't see how this was {{tq|treated like an emergency in immediate need of resolution}}. You've also clearly missed the WP:GAMING concerns if you think automatic inactivity will apply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::You seem to have missed that he resigned immediately once the recall petition got 25 signatures. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not really, he asked to be desysopped later, at the very last moment possible, keeping his admin bit for one extra month while at the same time retiring. Fram (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, let us look at recent years' edits, including 7 post-recall petition:

::::::Overall that looks like 100/5 would have been hit soon, or gaming of 100/5 would have become more apparent. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it feels like there should be a separate process to review admin's that do not meet or barely meet participation levels, verses starting a recall because of potentially harmful and hostile actions with the broom made towards the community. "Emergency" isn't the exact word but we are talking the difference between an admin seen as disruptive to the community vs an admin that is just being idle. Masem (t) 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::A inactive admin isn't actually doing anything. Secretlondon (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• This was, in a word, bad. Even leaving aside the "meeting the minimum isn't enough anymore" which has been extensively discussed above, and the fact that there was no abuse of the tools at all, there's the fact that, as mentioned on the recall petition page, the petitioner made no attempt to communicate with Jay before starting the petition, and when this was questioned pointed to a discussion six years ago as evidence of attempted communication. Also the claim, said by multiple people who signed the petition, that a barely-active admin was not believed to be {{tqq|up with community norms}} still strikes me as treading dangerously close to casting aspersions as it's a claim made about user conduct with absolutely zero evidence beyond "they're barely active". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The lack of prior communication is the one thing that bothers me. I’d like the following to be added to the policy: “The petition must include at least one link to a recent (within three months) noticeboard discussion that helps explain the reason for the petition. If there have been no relevant noticeboard discussions, one must be started and closed or archived prior to filing.” — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::In this case, I'm not sure what purpose a noticeboard discussion would have served. I think the issue should have been raised at Jay's talk page prior to the opening of the petition, although I doubt that would have led to a different outcome in this case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::A noticeboard discussion would have given the potential recall voter a broad view of the issue, just as the discussion did here. It would also give the administrator in question a chance to comment prior the petition’s initiation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• On whether this was close to a personal attack or not: Let's back up. A basic principle of security is to limit admin access to actually relevant accounts to reduce the surface area of an attack. This means that inactivity itself is a reason to revoke said access (at least if you agree with this principle - which I'd argue the community does). An editor could be the greatest ever, the most wise admin, but if their last 150 mainspace edits go back to 2009 (!!!), that and only that is a reason to pull the permissions from the account. As this example indicates, it's not a personal attack at all to point out such inactivity; it's possible (and even likely!) that such an editor did nothing "wrong". It's just good policy to yank access anyway. In the same way, an overeager new editor that makes 300 dummy edits to get to extended confirmed status could very well be a wonderful editor, but their EC status still needs to be yanked, and pointing out that the EC status wasn't really earned is not a personal attack. SnowFire (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :We do have an inactivity policy that asks for 100 edits in 5 years. I do not see how the number of edits in the decade before these 5 years is relevant for security today. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't think it's fruitful to litigate this specific case too deeply given that the user indicated they're giving up the bit, but even judged strictly on their past 5 years, it is at the very least debatable if they "really" maintained the 100/5 standard. Switching to the more general case... if an account gets to extended confirmed status with 499 edits of the Sandbox, the editor has fulfilled the letter of the requirements, but not the spirit, and should lose EC status. An admin who fulfills the letter of the 100/5 requirement via trivial edits, but not the spirit of the 100/5 requirement, should similarly be desysopped for inactivity (which is no-fault and in no way saying they made a mistake or are a bad person, just that their account is inactive). SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I am not trying to relitigate this case, but I am trying to learn from it for the future, so I think it is worth examining what happened. The edits from the past 5 years look pretty typical for an occasional editor: a few odd spelling corrections here and there and minor updates to a few articles. No real content creation and no engagement with the community, but nothing silly like your 499 sandbox edits either. I can't see evidence for the accusation that forms the basis of the recall petition that MJ has been actively trying to game the 100/5 standard in the last few years. (We would probably have noticed around July). I do see that MJ has been desysopped for inactivity twice and has never returned to the level of editing typical for people who contribute to this board. Going forward, perhaps we shouldn't allow a second resysop without a return to actual engagement with content or community? —Kusma (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{ping|SnowFire}} I never said that arguing inactivity was aspersions; it's entirely reasonable and logical. What I'm saying is bordering on aspersions is saying the user is not up with community norms without any evidence beyond "well, they haven't edited much". The result here may well have been correct, but the way we got there is troublesome. The ends justify the means? They shouldn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|This is generating all heat and no light and no constructive proposal is likely to come of it. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Let me get this right. Jay was "gaming the system" but somehow the 25 editors signing on to this shortcut that was easier than getting consensus on an RfC to raise the activity requirements again – these 25 were not gaining the system. So this means that 25 editors can initiate a recall on any admin for no reason at all – "I don't like him" is enough reason, as long as 25 others agree with you. OK, I'm waiting for 25 extended-confirmed MAGA editors to simultaneously initiate a couple dozen recalls on admins whose actions are insufficiently "DOGE". Sure this would be "gaming the system" but we have no way to stop them from doing that... 25 signatures are 25 signatures, and that's the only requirement. Don't say I didn't warn you. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would fully support raising the minimum number of signatures needed for a successful recall petition. That said, a petition is not de-adminship, it only requires resignation or an RRFA. A frivolous recall of the sort you describe ought to lead to a successful RRFA. In this case, I don't see how Master Jay would have passed, and I also don't see that any of the signatories were acting in bad faith, so I don't know how you conclude that they were gaming the system. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::But at what cost? In the old system I could count on the Arbitration Committee to deflect frivolous recalls, but the new system squarely places the burden on me, to take a not insignificant time off from my regular administering activities to prepare and submit a frivolous re-request for adminship, and then watch that discussion for a full week. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:A long time ago, editors got together and decided that consensus was the best decision-making process for our project. Your (Wbm1058's) comments seem to suggest that this process - 25 votes, without even "oppose" votes allowed to be considered - is contrary to that. I wonder if this (part of this) process is illustrating why that perhaps consensus would be the preferred model here. - jc37 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::The 25 votes is the minimum needed to trigger a discussion to take place. Jay was entitled to start that discussion, whose outcome is decided by consensus. But (putting aside procedural concerns) I doubt anyone here seriously thinks Jay would've passed, that consensus supports his adminship, or that he should have the sysop right. Indeed, his position has consistently been that he's entitled to them because he once passed RFA and meets the letter of WP:INACTIVITY, not even that he plans to return to activity, a position unlikely to resonate with the community-at-large. Anyways, if you want to skip straight to consensus you only need to get rid of the petition stage. But then you guys would say you're losing time in your week to supervise a discussion you didn't want to be a part of. So the petition acts as a safeguard.

::{{tq|In the old system I could count on the Arbitration Committee to deflect frivolous recalls}} suggests y'all actually agree with ArbCom's decision-making. But every time ArbCom desysops an admin that isn't an inactive account doing rambo actions, a sizable number of people (including some in this section) claim ArbCom is overreaching, violating policy, disregarding the community's will, etc etc. So it's kinda hard to see this discussion as anything other than relitigating admin recall. Even if y'all were right, I don't think these examples are strong vehicles to make your point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure who you are intending to group me with, with your "y'all" comments, but much of what you just said, I didn't say.

:::As for the "petition phase", I'm not sure how or why that should be treated any different than any other initial phase before an RfC, whether brainstorming/idea, or whatever else. I guess I am just surprised that we now have a process that allows for no dissent. Regardless of whatever is "intended" to happen next, this process doesn't allow for dissent or the minority opinion. Even WP:RFA doesn't do that, and neither do arbcom processes - and those processes are about as close to voting as we get on Wikipedia. So, I guess I just am surprised at your comments.

:::I'm aware of how we got here. I just think it might be worth assessing if this process meets the "wiki-way" of Wikipedia.

:::I never met a process yet on Wikipedia that wasn't worth discussing if we can make it better, or to align better to our current policies. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to better things when the opportunity arises. - jc37 20:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|jc37}} sorry if unclear, was replying to two comments in one, and the second half is quoting (and responding to) Wbm1058's comment directly above yours. To your comment, recall is bespoke and afaik comparable only to arbpol amendments, IIRC as compromise to admins sceptical about recall. The direct equivalent to other wiki-processes would be to allow any editor to start an AN discussion, and consensus to arrive at an outcome which may be stripping the +sysop bit. This is what we do for every other user right or ban discussion. But admins were worried of getting punished for taking difficult decisions, so there's a widely publicised and long discussion (the RRFA). And admins were worried about being frivolously taken through this time-consuming RRFA process, so there's a petition stage to filter out frivolous and spurious recall attempts. It's unusual precisely because we wish to add friction to revoke someone's sysop bit, and we don't artificially create friction in any other process to my knowledge aside from ARBPOL amendments. That said, it doesn't make sense for the petition stage to allow dissent, because that would make it a consensus discussion, which is then a duplicate of the RRFA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::But ProcrastinatingReader, consensus wouldn't determine a closure at an RRFA, a candidate would still have to get at least 75% support (or whatever percentage is used today), not a simple consensus or majority. And I imagine a lot of parties would show up to Oppose after an admin has lost their tools at a Recall that might not have chosen otherwise to participate in an RRFA. I think it's a bigger hurdle than an original RFA and probably more stressful than one as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's between 50% and 60% for a crat chat, or 60% for an automatic pass. A majority. Without arguing if it's stressful or not (I'm sure it is), the massive opposition to recall in general makes me think some people would support any RRFA for just this reason. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2, a couple people voted support in opposition to recall. win8x (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is a very confusing paragraph. Yes, someone clearly making perfunctory edits to hit a threshold is gaming the system, we have a long precedent for that. No, 25 editors using a system the way the system works are not gaming the system, almost by definition. CMD (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::The problem is the minimum activity requirements should probably be decided by consensus not what 30% of RFA voters think.©Geni (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If you are referring to the automatic deadminship policy, it requires 0% of RFA voters to think anything. It triggers a blanket and automatic deadminship process. This level is set far below the grey area where discussions would be held. CMD (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::

I think what Geni is trying to say is that the the effectively what this recall means is that 30% of RfA voters (actually 40%) can decide a minimum activity requirement since an admin can be recalled and then lose the tools if they don't meet the level of activity this 40% of RfA voters feel they need. And Geni feels this is wrong since this minimum activity level should be decided by consensus rather than what these 40% of RfA voters feel. (Yes once those requirements are set de-admining is almost automatic, but the point is it was decided by consensus.) I think this gets into an interesting intersection of what we think of consensus etc. There isn't any clear policy guidance etc besides what we set so any discussion about minimum activity levels would IMO be basically almost a vote on what people prefer with consensus trying to find what's closest to some sort of average or something like that. More interesting, this decision could easily be made by significant less voters than an RfA might actually receive. So whether it's clearly better I dunno. Of course in any case the recall procedure was also decided by consensus and as far as I can tell, most people complaining aren't those who supported the consensus for recalls but never expected them to be used like this.

More importantly, I'm just not convinced this is an area when can or should try to codify exact requirements since they seem too complicated. While I can understand why some inactive admins may feel it's unfair, per WP:NOTBURO etc, I feel it's not unreasonable for editors to say, we may have some absolute minimums but beyond that, we may consider other factors like how long it's been since you've been more active, whether you've given any signs this might change, how important the small amount of work you're doing seems to be, how inactive you've actually been throughout the years, how you've responded to concerns over your inactivity (beyond indications of whether it may change) so that we just cannot codify it all. I mean if we are getting 5-10 or more of these a year then we really should consider if we need to change something. But if we're only getting one of them every so often, IMO it's probably not necessary to codify what cannot be easily codified. At most, perhaps we should add something mentioning that those are the absolute minimums and admins may be recalled if editors feel their insufficiently active despite meeting the minimums.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::P.S. Per above it's actually a little more complicated than even 40%. Over 50% of RfA voters can definitely decide. 40-50% might be able to decide. 40% or less cannot decide. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Codifying exact requirements has worked out pretty well so far in terms of reducing the number of inactive admins. While I'm very much of the opinion they should be increased (somewhere around 500 edits over a 48-month period on the basis that that allows an entire year off without requiring a particularly high edit rate to return) that should be decided through conventional consensus process rather than what is effectively case-law.©Geni (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

: I find it bizarre that many of the same editors who criticize "rules-creep" are now criticizing a process that allows the community to take action without rules-creep. I note the essay WP:AJR. There are also some blatant misrepresentations here. 25 editors does not "recall" an admin; it simply starts a consensus process. The "five hours" did not complete the process; it only completed the beginning of the process. A process that Master Jay, correctly, determined would find that he should not retain the admin toolkit. The arguments for recall were not "just" inactivity, but the general hostility and misrepresentations going back years regarding that inactivity; with the defending arguments relying on that inactivity to claim that, as he made no recent actions, there were no harmful actions. 217.180.228.171 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Unwritten rules creeps is worse than written rules creep.©Geni (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The community can initiate a recall when they don't trust an admin is fit for purpose. This is written down and clear. If you want a rule about what makes humans trust others, that is outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. 74.254.224.119 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:It would be great if just once we could have a discussion about recall without anyone feeling the need to raise implausible hypotheticals for how recall might someday be abused. Does any seriously believe that the community would just stand by and allow 25 extended-confirmed MAGA editors to start bushwhacking admins? Of course not. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats would just stand by and allow one unelected guy to start bushwhacking the US Federal government? Of course not. We don't need no stinking "constitutional creep" to get in our way. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::In this case the hypothetical standing by "the Democrats" and the hypothetical bushwacked "US Federal government" are both us, the community. And the community already has the power to bushwhack itself, that's an inescapable implication of the consensus system. CMD (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Does anyone seriously believe that the community would just stand by and allow 25 extended-confirmed editors to start bushwhacking admins? Of course not.}} Oh, I think I get it now. Appointed checkusers would declare them "sockpuppets" and block them; no community consensus needed, and only subject to Arbcom, not community, review. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=G11 happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Could an admin take a look at :Draft:Prapas Pothongsunun? I'm asking about it because the creator queried me about it at :User talk:Marchjuly#Question from Prapas Pothongsunun (06:42, 23 March 2025). Articles about academics aren't really one of the areas I tend to work in, but it seems that tagging the draft for speedy deletion per G11 is a bit harsh. I get that this is likely an attempt to create an autobiography, but anything promotional about the draft could, in principle, be cleaned up if the subject of the article meets :WP:NACADEMIC. The same user also created :Dr. Prapas Pothongsunun, which they started as their user page before moving it to the mainspace. That probably needs to go, but it seems like they should be able to submit the draft to AfC for review and try to improve it to bring in more in line with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Concur -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

: Virtually all of the references in the draft appear to be articles coauthored by the subject, which fail independence. It would be better in this case to start from scratch. BD2412 T 17:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:: This discussion can probably be closed now since both pages were deleted per G11. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Apostrophe-b-gon applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)}}

The images at this page need to be resized to comply with Wikipedia's standards for use of non-free images. However, when I try to upload the new image using the "Upload a new version of this file" link, I get a [https://ibb.co/TqKtwZ3b red box telling me the file name contains a right single quotation mark]. But it doesn't. I'm not entering unicode characters as I save my file. Anyway, I even tried copy-pasting the single characters suggested as replacements but I get the same error. The red box told me to come here with this issue. I really hope I'm not bothering anyone... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is a quotation mark in the filename. File:MediaWiki 2025-03-24 01-46-28.png voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know but, in case it helps, :File:L’avenir-Catherine Leroux.jpg contains U+2019 not an apostrophe. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oona Wikiwalker, I've moved all three files to titles without apostrophes, so you shouldn't have any problems now. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much for that! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::U+2019 can also be used as an apostrophe. MSMST1543 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Content dispute. Dorsetonian wll not be sanctioned per Noob3.0 Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello, I would like to report this User:Dorsetonian for his constant trolling and edit warring against me. I made good edits to BBC Radio, Shine a Little Love, and Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all he does is keep trolling me and undo my good edits for no specific reason. Please can you block him from editing. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:He's undoing your edits because what you're writing is all wrong. For BBC Radio, you keep replacing it with the regular BBC logo, which is completely wrong, the Shine album HAS been released in the U.S., and you removed a video file of Bill Clinton talking about Princess Diana's death. These can't be classified as "good edits". NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Request queue is being worked

| result = Nothing more to do here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Rollback requests now span a month back, can someone please review if possible? Valorrr (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Valorrr Why is there a centralized venue for rollback requests? Its very easy to do a manual rollback. DotesConks (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::I assume Valorrr is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, given they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=prev&oldid=1282341984 posted their own request today]. While the oldest request is indeed a month old, the second-oldest is 9 days - which suggests the backlog is far closer to a week than it is a month, and that one request sitting there is an outlier. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes I was, sorry. Valorrr (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Valorrr You don't really need rollback. It takes just a few seconds more to revert to a previous edit before all the vandalism. DotesConks (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Makes you have Wikipedia:Huggle Valorrr (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Endorsed|1=Discussion seems to have petered out, so going to go ahead and close this. While there's quite a bit of discussion that clarification of the closure is desirable, the overall consensus below is that the closure was correct and The Heritage Foundation is blacklisted and deprecated. Having looked over Dr vulpes' closure myself, while the exact wording could perhaps indeed have been clearer, it's obvious the intent is blacklist and deprecate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)}}

: {{RfC closure review links|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Heritage_Foundation}} (Discussion with closer)

Closer: {{userlinks|Dr vulpes}}

User requesting review: {{userlinks|Placeholderer}} at 18:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_vulpes#c-Placeholderer-20250311185100-Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion]

Reasoning: I'll include @Compassionate727's thoughtful description of the issues with the close, since I can't explain much better:

: I find [Closer's] closure of the Heritage Foundation RfC rather confusing and, to an extent, incomplete. [Closer] seem[s] to have found a consensus to blacklist over security concerns, but [Closer] didn't really address the argument that blacklisting would not protect editors or readers; indeed, [Closer] indicated at the end of [Closer's] statement that [Closer] thought this was a compelling argument, and it's deeply unclear to me how [Closer] could find a consensus to blacklist for security reasons if [Closer] found those security arguments uncompelling. Moreover, [Closer] did not make a clear finding on the reliability of the Heritage Foundation; [Closer] seem[ed] to have found [it] GUNREL on the basis of its publishing false claims, but [Closer] did not address (and it is not clear if [Closer] even considered) some of the other arguments, such as whether its being a think tank means its reliability should be evaluated differently from, for example, mainstream news media, and whether the Heritage Foundation was more reliable in the past. [Closer] also did not comment on the acceptability of proposals to maintain links while bypassing the Heritage Foundation website, such as by using the Internet Archive.

In addition, the closure did not give an actual category of reliability for the source. Per @Aaron Liu here and here:

: Besides this, there's currently confusion at RSP over whether the source is generally unreliable or deprecated, a status that is different from whether it is blacklisted . . . I'd appreciate it if we could know if Heritage is, besides being blacklisted, generally unreliable or deprecated. This matters for its classification at RSP and by extension whether it's included at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.

In a month since the close, and since issues were raised, Closer has not addressed or even responded to most of the issues; they have been pretty inactive recently, so I'd infer that they have been busy with other things. Placeholderer (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• :Blacklisting clearly doesn't affect security as I think people are naive if they think they'd capture IP addresses using their own domains. Secretlondon (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Eh? If you use the network inspector tool in your browser, they serve 22 distinct IP trackers from a variety of places from the main page of the site in question. Don't call people naive if didn't bother checking the website. 166.196.61.59 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Probably shouldn't re-launch into specifics of internet safety here. Extensively covered in the RfC Placeholderer (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I propose a link to Wikipedia:Personal security practices be included at top of close. Dw31415 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I'v added a link to it as I feel it would be uncontroversial. If someone feels it should be removed or otherwise linked differently, I will not have any issue with it. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Vacate. It's not the consensus I would've found, but it is a reasonable one. No problems there. However, I felt the explanation for how he found the consensus he did was very convoluted and not well-reasoned, and there were a lot of nuanced questions that people raised within the RfC that weren't addressed in the closure. I'd prefer someone else write a more cohesive, thorough closure, especially because this could attract public scrutiny. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• There's a lot of complexity here. I would endorse the decision to blacklist, clarify that this also means deprecate, and rewrite the closing statement to make it an orderly disquisition with a coherent sequence of ideas, and includes a summary of all the major arguments.—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn I cannot understand how a source can be blacklisted based on a purported leaked document. There is no further evidence/confirmation (to the best of my knowledge) that this leaked plan is even real and not a hoax. As others have stated blacklisting would not impact security (the purported plan involved sending targetted phishing links to users via fake accounts, not through references). Any legitimate concerns of reliability were completely overshadowed and unable to be discussed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::There have been further outright news reports on it since. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Do any of those have any new evidence to confirm it? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Linked to here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is nothing new in this report? It just reports on the document that was included in the Forward story. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::This argument very clearly did not gain favor in the RfC and was widely rejected by the participants. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse I do not think there was any other option to the closer than closing it as 4 (Deprecate) or 5 (Blacklist) and both of them have the same effective result, apart from the fact that editors trying to add the domain will be warned against (4) or prevented from (5) adding it. There was a clear consensus that we don't want this domain being used here. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse what exists, requires clarification While I concur with Actively Disinterested below in the comments that the closer was somewhat ambivalent regarding reliability I do think any reasonable closer would see that there was consensus that Heritage Foundation is thoroughly unreliable. Furthermore, while blacklisting is not a perfect security tool by any means it will, at least, make hostile actions against Wikipedia marginally harder. This is of benefit, especially in light of the unreliability of the source. Furthermore the spam designation may be of use for handling this particular unreliable source as it is regularly cited by articles on economics due to its indices. Which were discussed at length in the RfC as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:*I've adjusted my !vote to endorse what exists, requires clarification, on the basis of the conversation with {{ping|User:Aaron Liu}} below. I think the consensus for the blacklisting was clear. My assumption was that blacklisting was not being treated separately from deprecation but the closer should specify whether that's the case rather than us assuming. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn A mechanically incomplete (i.e broken) close should be fixed, and closer isn't around to do it Placeholderer (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I don't see any big problem with the close when it comes to representing the consensus of the discussion. It does not seem to be particularly ambiguous to me that the intention was to find Heritage to be unReliable as well as blacklisted although it is unfortunate that this is not stated explicitly. Maybe it seemed so obvious to that the closer just didn't realise that there was any scope for such a misunderstanding. If clarification is required then maybe somebody else can add an addendum to the close to explicitly cover this and maybe also to say whether the Daily Signal was found to be unReliable too. Surely we do not need to formally overturn a mostly correct close on a fully argued out RfC just so it can be clarified? (We certainly don't want to reopen it!) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn or at least complete the close by deciding whether it is generally unreliable or deprecated, which was completely missing in the close. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Striking my vote as there's no need to overturn the part that's already been closed (the blacklisting), but we do still need to clarify if it is generally unreliable or deprecated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Closer can later clarify the Unreliable vs. Deprecated bit, but that is no reason to overturn the closure just to continue debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The problem is that they were already asked to do that, and haven't… for a month. At this point it looks like someone else will need to tack on a second closure making a judgment on this… —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't agree with the result of the discussion for the reasons I stated at the time. However, given the RfC discussion, the closing is a reasonable summation of the discussion. Springee (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse per Springee, the close is a reasonable summation of the discussion that occured. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn per Placeholderer. There's remaining issues the close needs to address, especially what the reliability of the source is. I would've endorsed the existing parts of the close if not for the close not mentioning the reasoning for believing the theater argument did not prevail (a belief I think is within the closer's discretion, but they still should've included reasoning), although that's only a very small thing, so I endorse the existing parts except for that. (Also, I was not pinged since you can't edit a failed ping to fix it without a new reply/ping.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :My bad with the ping! Still new to this stuff. @Compassionate727 ping just in case Placeholderer (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is no need to determine if it is reliable or not when the decision was clearly to not permit it to be used at all. Regardless of whether this was because of reliability or other problems (as in this case). I hate this result as much as the next person - but if/when the Heritage Foundation is no longer engaging in cyberwarfare against Wikipedia editors specifically... then a discussion can be had to unblacklist it and in that discussion the overall reliability can be determined. There is zero benefit to immediately determining reliability of a source that is being blacklisted per community consensus in any case. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I would prefer not to have a 280kB discussion all over again for no good reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think part of the confusion is that "5(Blacklist)" isn't a question of reliability, even deprecated sources aren't blacklisted as blacklisting is usually reserved for spam. The RFC had two questions, reliability and whether they should be blacklisted. The list of options would have been better expressed as the normal 1-4 options and then asked respondents to add if it should be blacklisted. As it is the close doesn't seem conclusive on the question of reliability. It could probably have been easily qualified but the closer hasn't edited in the last few weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@ActivelyDisinterested 2001:8A0:E97B:C100:30D7:DD16:4561:EEFA (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• With all due respect for those endorsing the close, the purpose of an RfC at RSN is to determine reliability, and the close literally didn't do that Placeholderer (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• I think the assumption that both those of us endorsing and the closer made was that blacklisting was an enhancement of deprecation rather than an entirely distinct action. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :That still has to be spelled out since blacklisting is in fact a distinct action. I'd be fine if we just tacked on a "deprecated" onto the close since that seems like the consensus to me (though marking as generally unreliable instead and not blacklisting is still well within the closer discretion. Just adding the source's status still leaves question as to the basis for having blacklisting over the security theater concern, but that alone is a fairly minor problem and not something I'd start a closure review about). Aaron Liu (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::There is disagreement[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources%2F4&diff=1274911471&oldid=1274759161] over whether the close indicated GUNREL or deprecated. If this discussion gets into in-depth discussion over whether the close was for GUNREL or for deprecation, it could conceivably lead to an RfC over interpreting the close of the RfC Placeholderer (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The closer makes clear they should be considered unreliable, but doesn't mention deprecation. Deprecation and blacklisting are different processes for different purposes. All the close needs is to clarify whether the source is unreliable or deprecated. I wonder if it's worthwhile someone else adding to the close to clarify that point, as Dr. Vulpes is unavailable.
  I don't think it's as clear cut as all those calling for blacklisting in the RFC also wanted deprecation, as some of them make no mention of reliability only security concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ideally, close would also clarify issues such as use of archived or whitelisted links; whether or not HF was differently reliable previously; the reliability of the IEF; whether or not (and why or why not) the reliability should be broken down by topic area; and apparently the reliability of all think tanks since the listing on RSP invents a "presumption of unreliability for think tanks" (though this wasn't even mentioned in the close—an example of problems with interpreting the close). But I think stuff that would be nice for the close to have is a secondary issue compared to the close not judging reliability Placeholderer (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::(Plus reliability of the Daily Signal, which, despite not being mentioned in the close, was included on the RSP listing, though hasn't actually been blacklisted) Placeholderer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::The {{tq|presumption of unreliability for think tanks}} is prior consensus; as the summary at RSP mentions it can be found and was referenced in prior linked discussions. That part of the RSP summary is independent of this close and about prior discussions. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Oh, my mistake! I change my complaint to be that it was mentioned as reasoning on RSP when it wasn't included reasoning in the close Placeholderer (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• I want to add that I think this is an WP:ADMINACCT issue (Dr. Vulpes was failing to respond to queries about this RfC even before he disappeared), and while I don't intend to escalate it further now, I find it concerning to see this from someone recently promoted by the administrator elections process. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Kind of agree, but I say cut the guy some slack. Radio silence over the internet usually means sudden life stuff. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = and now wholly done with LuchoCR having responded and the reporter being INDEFFED. Star Mississippi 01:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Atop|We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am reaching out to report a Wikipedia administrator, LuchoCR, who is abusing their power by unfairly blocking accounts and then demanding payments to restore access.

My account (Merquisedec1996) has been blocked under the accusation of "multiple account abuse and block evasion," which is completely false. After the block, LuchoCR contacted me, demanding $500 USD to regain access. I have evidence of this behavior, including screenshots and communication records.

Additionally, I have discovered that I am not the only victim. This user has been using the same scam on many other people, arbitrarily blocking their accounts and demanding money for unblocking them. He is using the phone number {{redacted}} to carry out these scams.

I request an urgent investigation into this matter and appropriate action against LuchoCR. I am willing to provide all necessary evidence to support my report.

I look forward to your prompt response and action to stop this abuse within the Wikipedia community.

Best regards,

Merquisedec1996 Merquisedec1996 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:This reeks of chatbot. I'm also redacting the alleged phone number on the ground that if it's wrong, whoever's on the other end is likely to get very irrelevant nastygrams from trolls. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Merquisedec1996, LuchoCR is not an admin on en.wikipedia.org. They are on es.wikipedia.org, a different project. Is that where this is happening? If so, there's nothing we can do for you. That's a separate project and you'd need to reach out to them. Note that this is an incredibly common scam, though. An admin blocks an account and then a completely different, unrelated scammer claiming to be that admin reaches out to the blocked user in an attempt to scam money out of them. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Yamla}} from what I can tell this is indeed based on es.wp; Merquisedec1996 is indef'd there as a sockpuppet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I tell you that the person who uses that account is the correct one and does so because he contacts from his Wikipedia account via email to ask for money, well, what does he block? Aside from that, I have a recorded call asking me for money and I am not the first to do this since he sees that it is a publication or something from a company or something from an artist. Many people come. If someone could contact a Spanish administrator to proceed with their investigation because he is a recent user and I am from 2017, they are two very different things. Merquisedec1996 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::No. You need to reach out to a Spanish admin. We only deal with matters related to the English language version of Wikipedia here. Note that nothing you have said convinces me this is actually LuchoCR doing this, though nothing you've said rules it out. Regardless, there is nothing we can do for you. Your problem is with a different project. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Even if we did that, this is not a matter for the English-language Wikipedia. If anything it'd be escalated to Meta for a global lock, and I find the idea that someone is impersonating LuchoCR more plausible than LuchoCR trying to run a scam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:You are required to notify the person you are reporting, as prominently reminded in the top of this page. I have done so for you this time.

:I recommend discussing this with @LuchoCR directly, as this doesn’t involve English Wikipedia and, as others have noted, this is probably a scam being run by someone posing as LuchoCR.

:There is nothing more we can do here on English Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::As I told you, it doesn't let me argue or speak or write in Spanish, not even with anyone. Merquisedec1996 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::And what do you expect us to do about it? en.wp and es.wp are completely separate projects with their own standards and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Looking into this, I see that:

:# LuchoCR blocked Merquisedec yesterday, with the rationale (loosely summarised/poorly translated) "Abuse of multiple accounts/block evasion: vandalism, intimidation, harassment, and personal attacks";

:# the block did not revoke talk page or email access, and Merquise has already requested an unblock on their user talk page at es.wp;

:# It's highly unlikely an es.wp functionary (he holds CU rights over there from all appearances) would throw it away to try and bilk someone out of $500.

:I stand by mine and Yamla's belief that this is someone pretending to be LuchoCR doing a hideously poor job of extorting money out of some random guy he blocked. (Given he's still performing CU blocks over there today, the idea that his account got pwned also doesn't pass the laugh test.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

• Just a note that LuchoCR responded on their talk and asked to have their response recorded here: {{xt|The discussion was closed without giving me a chance to defend myself. Indeed, everything stated there is false; the user is harassing users via IP addresses, and although he claims to have a phone call between him and me, it is false. The phone number displayed here and on es.wikipedia is not mine. It seems that the individual searched for "LuchoCR" on Facebook and found this page, which I do not own, nor am I the person. I would appreciate it if this response could be linked to the discussion thread so that it is on record that I absolutely reject these accusations, and if they persist, I ask the administrators to take similar measures to those taken on es.wikipedia against this abuser. Pura vida. LuchoCR (talk) 2:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)}} copied over by Valereee (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• This seems to imply that OP's accuation isn't just a case of a fraudster impersonating LuchoCR, but an accusation made up from whole cloth. Given the severity of it, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I'll go ahead and block, since I also suspect UPE (see deleted contribs) and they have made precisely zero positive contributions since their account creation in 2017. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Situation resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)}}

I occasionally like to browse through AN/I when I'm bored, and see what drama is going on in the Wikipedia world. I occasionally use a screenreader, and this report is currently unreadable due to the line of X's. I'd really appreciate it if an admin could remove them as I don't believe I can do so without violating TPO (especially considering it's an admin noticeboard). I'd also like some clarification on if this is an appropriate exception to TPO or if I should avoid doing this in the future. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 21:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. I think it's in the area of "fixing layout/format errors". There were also two(ish) syntax typos related to links, so I fixed those as well. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Reports like this are important for maintaining accessibility. Thank you, and feel free to comment when there are issues in the future. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, but it should be on the talk page. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think this is fine. Few people check noticeboard talk pages. We don't get notices like this very often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = NFA WaggersTALK 15:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I would like to request the deletion of a fake Wikipedia page created under my name, "Roshan Shrestha."

The page contains unreliable sources, unverifiable claims, and violates Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Despite the PROD tag, I request that this page be reviewed for immediate deletion under Wikipedia’s deletion policies as it is misleading and defamatory.

Supporting Evidence:

- I am a journalist and owner of Bethel Media House Private Limited, and my official website is khojsamachar.com.

- The page does not reflect verified information, and its content is fabricated.

Please take the necessary action to review and delete the page. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Roshan Shrestha Rohanshresrha (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:You put a speedy deletion tag, not a Proposed Deletion(PROD) tag. You seem to be a different person than that described in Roshan Shrestha. That describes a model and actor, not a journalist. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Based on the information you have provided, it seems like the text at Roshan Shrestha is simply about a different person by the same name. I don't see anything in the page that could be considered "defamatory" one way or another. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response, 331dot.

::I understand that the page may describe a person with the same name as mine. However, I would like to highlight several concerns that question the reliability and notability of the information presented on the page:

::1. **Lack of Verified Sources and Notability:**

:: The page does not include any official or verifiable sources that confirm who this Roshan Shrestha is. There are no social media links, news articles from notable or reliable Nepali news portals, or any content that clearly establishes this person's identity and notability.

::2. **Potential Misuse of Name:**

:: Since my name, "Roshan Shrestha," is frequently searched on Google due to my role as a journalist and media house owner, I am concerned that this page might be taking advantage of that fact by using my name inaccurately.

::3. **Unclear Identity of the Subject:**

:: The page fails to provide any strong evidence about who exactly the person being described (a supposed model or actor) is. It remains unclear and unverifiable, which risks confusing readers and misrepresenting information.

::Based on these points, I respectfully request that the page be reviewed for deletion under Wikipedia’s guidelines for non-notable and unverifiable content.

::Thank you for your time and consideration.

::Best regards,

::Roshan Shrestha (Journalist and Media House Owner) Rohanshresrha (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The article as written cites several different news websites. I'm not an expert on Nepali media or language, but the cited sources give the impression of professionality at a glance, which is essentially all we ask of a WP:NEWSORG absent evidence of misinformation or paid placement. I'll note that the photos provided of Shrestha across the articles seem to consistently portray the same person, further undermining the argument that this is a hoax of some kind.

:::If you're confident that the sources in question genuinely aren't reliable (and that you can demonstrate that clearly such that others will be persuaded by your arguments), you can proceed to nominate the article for WP:AfD, the standard process for requesting deletion of an article on notability grounds. We are not going to take any special action here at AN unless there's actual libel or other defamatory text. If it turns out that there is another Rohan Shrestha that is more notable than you and it affects your SEO, I'm afraid there's nothing that we at Wikipedia can do about it (after all, we're equally accountable to the other Rohan; if they're notable, they're notable). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"Thank you for your response, Rosguill.

::::I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the clarification. However, I would like to elaborate on why I believe that the sources in the article may not meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards:

::::Lack of Reliable and Independent Sources:

:::: The news articles cited in the Wikipedia page do not come from recognized, mainstream, or independent media organizations in Nepal. Most of the cited sources are from little-known websites that often do not follow professional journalism standards and could be considered unreliable.

::::Unclear Identity and Misleading Photos:

:::: While the photos seem to be consistent, there is no concrete evidence that the person in question is notable. There are no well-established social media accounts, interviews, or verifiable content that can confirm who this person is.

::::SEO and Name Confusion:

:::: My concern stems from the fact that my name (Roshan Shrestha), which is well-known due to my media presence as a journalist, may be unintentionally associated with this individual, affecting my online reputation. This could be a case of mistaken identity.

::::Based on these points, I will review the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process and follow the appropriate steps to request deletion if necessary.

::::Thank you for your time and guidance." Rohanshresrha (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is not the place to make your case. Please follow WP:AfD. --Yamla (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it is possible that this individual could be mistaken for you. But that is neither "defamatory"(a deliberate effort to smear your reputation) nor "misleading"(a deliberate effort to deceive). With 8 billion humans on this planet, it is inevitable that more than one may have the same name. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::"Thank you for your response, Yamla

::::::I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the clarification. However, I would like to point out a specific issue with one of the cited sources in the article that may highlight why I believe the page is misleading and does not meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards:

::::::Misleading Source (Rohan vs. Roshan Confusion):

:::::: One of the links in the article actually refers to an Indian artist associated with Ranveer Singh, and the name mentioned there is Rohan Shrestha, not Roshan Shrestha. You can see this in the following link:

:::::: Ranveer Singh’s lovely memories with Oprah Winfrey and Rohan Shrestha

::::::Please pay close attention to the difference in spelling: Rohan and Roshan are two different names, but it seems there has been some mix-up here. The confusion over the letter S in their names creates a misleading impression that these are the same individuals. This source, therefore, appears irrelevant and misleading when used in the article about Roshan Shrestha.

::::::Name Confusion and Potential Misleading Information:

:::::: This confusion contributes to my concern that the article might be unintentionally creating a case of mistaken identity, which affects my online presence and SEO. My name, Roshan Shrestha, is associated with my work as a journalist, and the inaccurate information in this article could harm my reputation.

::::::Based on this evidence, I will review the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process and follow the appropriate steps if necessary. I wanted to bring this specific source-related issue to your attention for further consideration.

::::::Thank you for your time and guidance." Rohanshresrha (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Rohanshresrha, STOP. There's nothing we can do for you here. You need to stop posting here. You also need to stop using AI chatbots. --Yamla (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you are going to argue for the deletion of this article, focus your arguments on Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia has exactly zero interest in your online reputation and SEO. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please remember not to use ChatGPTs or other LLMs to write your comments for you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"Thank you for your response, Rosguill.

::::I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the clarification. However, I would like to point out a specific issue with one of the cited sources in the article that may highlight why I believe the page is misleading and does not meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards:

::::Misleading Source (Rohan vs. Roshan Confusion):

:::: One of the links in the article actually refers to an Indian artist associated with Ranveer Singh, and the name mentioned there is Rohan Shrestha, not Roshan Shrestha. You can see this in the following link:

:::: Ranveer Singh’s lovely memories with Oprah Winfrey and Rohan Shrestha

::::Please pay close attention to the difference in spelling: Rohan and Roshan are two different names, but it seems there has been some mix-up here. The confusion over the letter S in their names creates a misleading impression that these are the same individuals. This source, therefore, appears irrelevant and misleading when used in the article about Roshan Shrestha.

::::Name Confusion and Potential Misleading Information:

:::: This confusion contributes to my concern that the article might be unintentionally creating a case of mistaken identity, which affects my online presence and SEO. My name, Roshan Shrestha, is associated with my work as a journalist, and the inaccurate information in this article could harm my reputation.

::::Based on this evidence, I will review the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process and follow the appropriate steps if necessary. I wanted to bring this specific source-related issue to your attention for further consideration.

::::Thank you for your time and guidance." Rohanshresrha (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = unbanned

| result = Consensus to unban, with WP:1RR restriction. asilvering (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|TzarN64}}

This editor was blocked more than three years ago for disruptive editing, and ended up at a WP:3X ban for repeated block evasion. Since then, they've more than fulfilled the usual terms of the WP:SO and two CUs (in December and just now) have come back with no obvious evidence of block evasion. Text of their appeal below.

{{Blockquote|text=In 2022, I got blocked for clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. i was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1066962733&diff=1067080283 disruptive], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_streaming_services_for_the_Nintendo_Wii&diff=prev&oldid=1073699096 caused edit wars], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNewer_Super_Mario_Bros._Wii&diff=1108684185&oldid=1108684047 made personal attacks], and even sockpuppeting. I made random disruptive, unsourced, and clearly not notable articles before when i socked. I completely understand why i got blocked in the first place, and i promise i won't do it again and start making helpful contributions to Wikipedia again. It has been for ever since i last sockpuppeted and made any disruptive edits, I'm not the same person anymore who makes disruptive edits to the enclyopedia and when caught just socking again. I genuinely want to contribute to wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSecondComing10&diff=prev&oldid=1109039523 I was so completely immature back then], and i'm just really sorry. I promise i have matured so much since then, and i'm ready to return to wikipedia and make useful contributions again. Thank you.}}

Thanks for your consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock/unban. Appellant has grown into a different person and should be able to edit constructively.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Suggestion Given the edit warring, warring which continued across sockpuppet accounts, I suggest a WP:1RR restriction, appealable no sooner than six months after it is imposed. TzarN64, what do you think of that? Additionally, although the user previously attempted to mislead us with regard to block evasion and sockpuppetry, I see no reason to think they are doing so this time. That makes 2023 the last time we are aware of. --Yamla (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|I agree to a 1RR restriction, as i won't really be reverting much unless it's obvious vandalism. if i disagree with another editor, i'll try to resolve the situation in a talk page.}} -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban with a WP:1RR restriction, appealable after six months, as agreed by TzarN64. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support Same terms as Yamla. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR since they agree to it anyway. Seems a helpful guardrail. Star Mississippi 01:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can believe that that one can grow out of the type of conduct that led to the original blocks; assume that TzarN64 realizes that any regression will lead to a quick reblock, which will be harder to come back from. Am ok with the 1RR restriction. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support - with a 1RR restriction should be okay. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Yamla's 1RR. Seems a genuine reboot attempt. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Advice given. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)}}

User at User talk:116.255.47.44 wishes for their school to be blocked. Valorrr (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:If they want their own IP blocked from editing, they should email VRT. I"ll leave instructions on the IP's talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=The draft has been rejected, and I concur with Knowledgegatherer23 that this isn't the place to be requesting a review. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello administrators,

I would like to request that my draft article currently located at User:Toyosikehinde22/sandbox be moved to the mainspace as "Bruce Barber".

I believe it meets Wikipedia's notability and quality standards. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Toyosikehinde22 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Toyosikehinde22, your article is already waiting for review. The administrators noticeboard is not the place to request review. The process may take multiple months. Asking here will not speed up the request. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 15:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

An IP user is committed to evading a recent block (see 1, 2, 3). Filing here as opposed to WP:AIV because I don't think the user's edits are solely spam or vandalism. ipcheck does not see all their IPs as proxies, so filing new IPs here that don't belong at WP:OPP. Also new users that appear to be obvious block evasion of the IP user.

Some common behavior patterns are a particular focus on WP:RA/BAE, misspelling (recent diff example, but widespread), and nonsensical requests (recent diff, see BAE's history for more).

Given this activity has been long-term, I will continue adding IPs/users to this incident for now. Tule-hog (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Userlinks|168.195.25.195}} Tule-hog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::Blocked, obvious block evasion. Not a proxy but they have found a different telecommunications company. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{userlinks|2804:389:b171:c588:b869:a3b7:72cf:fcb1}} - from Brazil, where IP user is located. Typical request with unrelated link. Tule-hog (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree this is block evasion and have reverted the edit on that basis. It’s an IP with no other editing history in the /64 so let’s just keep an eye on it for now. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Userlinks|Exxxtrasmall}} Tule-hog (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Isn't that in violation of the username policy? It's the name of a porn site. A type of cabinet (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::And you know that how, exactly? EEng 05:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I know how Google works. A type of cabinet (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I guess Google could be seen as a type of filing cabinet or something. EEng 06:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's more of a pile of "maybe" at this point. A type of cabinet (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{userlinks|2804:389:B101:6BF:A922:8295:24AD:F280}} Tule-hog (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:: I come in good faith and you mock the respect I've given you. Since these edits are so bad, why don't you revert? (translation by deepl) Calvice feminina (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=No need to keep this open any longer, comments very much appreciated. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)}}

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokad

I've just closed as delete a contentious AfD which included participation from a number of persons directly linked to the company. Would appreciate a second or third set of eyes. Courtesy pings to admins who participated in the discussion for procedural reasons. {{yo|Hammersoft|Drmies|Ponyo}}. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Good close, clear consensus to delete, though DRV would have been the proper venue for this discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 12:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::A comment before mine rather similar in content was removed by its author – if this is indeed not the kind of feedback you're looking for, Goldsztajn, please make this clear. Toadspike [Talk] 12:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Toadspike - sort of a pre-emptive DRV, if you will. Am relatively comfortable defending the close, but at this point I just wanted to see how others might feel. Appreciate yours and the previous (now removed) comment. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's a good, well-reasoned close. Thank you Goldsztajn. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm with {{U|Hammersoft}}: good close, and thank you Goldsztajn. That was a mess--and I'm not surprised to see Vermorel blocked and their CU-confirmed sock as well. I mean, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demand_sensing&diff=prev&oldid=1280425543 such edits] are blockable and I would have, had the editor not gotten so contentious. You know how it is: they yell at you and then they claim you're not neutral because you don't want to be yelled at. Anyway, thanks for taking care of that--to all involved. And I'm fine with this being here, since it's as much about the participants as it is about any discussion of content. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this being here, too, as Goldsztajn was seeking a review from admins in particular, not a general review of the discussion closure from the community. The easy closes get taken care of pretty easily, thanks for taking on a complicated AFD, Goldsztajn. Your help is appreciated at AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|The closer has reverted their close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)}}

• Talk:Erik Satie#Infobox RFC

A recent RfC on whether to include an infobox was closed by user:Fortuna imperatrix mundi. This is problematic for multiple reasons: not only are they not a neutral party (Mozart, {{diff|Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|942390683||2020}} {{diff|Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozar|1144109957||2023}}) in this contentious subject area, they also ignored a roughly 60%-to-40% supermajority to include the infobox, as well as the fact that several !oppose votes did not address the issue meaningfully or were posted by users with barely any contributions. Me, {{ping|Gerda Arendt}}, and {{ping|Nemov}} all expressed concern about this particular closure but have not received a response. I also reverted the closure, was reverted by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, and requested clarification; they told me to take it here. Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

: The closer has not edited since, and I would wait for a reply, and perhaps reconsideration. {{diff|Talk:Erik Satie|1282526492||The close}} shows no indication of any evaluation of arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::It’s about the close, not them, though their behavior is still problematic. We’re not trying to sanction them so they don’t need to defend themself. The close can and should be undone without their input, which could take days or just never come. I’m not waiting for a reconsideration esp. since my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am glad to prove you wrong, not that that's a particularly onerous exercise. I've reverted my close based on Gerda's reasonong (for the peanut gallery, it's been established that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScottishFinnishRadish You're almost always needlessly aggressive, and your interjections there probably aren't going to help anything]). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to include. There was a rough consensus to include, not a lack of consensus. Supporters stated reasons to include that are specific to the article, and most of those reasons were not successfully countered. Oppose comments are a bit more in the direction of opposing adding an infobox to an article on this type of subject, in addition to arguments like "this article didn't have an infobox since it was created many years go", "they want to add the infobox just for the sake of having an infobox", and "the vested contributors don't want an infobox" (paraphrasing from memory, phone).—Alalch E. 11:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I only support an operative overturning to a different outcome (include), and oppose overturning to a non-determined outcome for another editor to close, i.e. vacating. If another closer is going to close the vacated RfC as "no consensus" based on their individual judgement, I am announcing my intent to challenge that close as the wrong recording of consensus. Given a "no consensus" close, I am much more in favor of the original Fortuna imperatrix mundi close, which I treat as a well intentioned attempt that should not be easily dismissed. —Alalch E. 13:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn, new closer needed. I'm in rough agreement with Alalch E. that I'm not seeing 'no consensus'. By (very) rough vote count it looks like ~17 support an infobox, ~11 oppose, and by arguments, some opposers seemed to be objecting only to a particular version of the infobox but would support one that was more useful, and some opposers were not opposing for policy reasons. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn That RfC closure was far too scant and does not seem to have weighed the arguments in the slightest. I would suggest a different closer would likely be wise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn, new closer, no explanation is unacceptable in this situation Feeglgeef (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse result but needs new close Whilst I think the result is acceptable (there's so much IDONTLIKEIT, ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL and various other ATDs that I don't think anyone has made a convincing argument for whether it should be kept or deleted), closing it without explanation is not good enough here. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This isn’t a deletion debate. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :: {{ping|Dronebogus}} I was referring to the infobox, not the article. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to include per Alalch's analysis and my own review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to include, obviously. There was a consensus to include no matter how you slice it— both by majority and strength of arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|2=Wrong venue|1=You can request a username change at WP:CHU/S or m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. However, speaking as a global renamer, note that while this username technically complies with WP:NONSCRIPT, it might cause headaches down the line, and might get you blocked on some wikis with stricter script-based rules. So I'd encourage thinking this over before requesting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)}}

(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 = Onemilliontree in archaic form. If it is possible to facilitate as I have to consider some numerical problems and the name v. is problematic - for example: multi-language knowledge allows thinking beyond the restrictions of one's own culture and past - would reduce the input into my consciousness then I could have less reinforcement from a specific language type - meaning. It could be a temporary change while I have influx of certain problems in articles. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 05:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Those are certainly words. But given the ruckus that Δ caused with their username, I don't think this is going to fly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:You talk about multi-language knowledge but what languages do you actually know well enough that you can read and write or converse with someone about everyday matters and understand and be understood? The fact you left an edit summary in English on the French Wikipedia makes me think French isn't one of them. If the answer is that you only have such fluency with English, perhaps learning some other language would be a more productive way to get multi-language knowledge than trying to rename yourself to scripts from extinct writing systems. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|Suicide methods}}

{{User|Aplucas0703}} has opened a request for comment on the Suicide methods page, re-opening a discussion from a year prior about whether a link should be added to the top of the page which links to the Meta list of mental health resources. Aaron's preferred hatnote looks like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_methods&oldid=1280456817 this], per an earlier revision of the page. Now, to be clear, I don't think any rules have been broken (hence why I posted this to WP:AN rather than WP:ANI.) However, I do believe this proposal would constitute a major reworking of "no disclaimers" policy. Therefore I am unsure whether a RfC on a relatively obscure talk page is the proper venue for such a discussion.

I am requesting that an admin look over the proposal and decide whether it belongs there or should be moved elsewhere. wound theology◈ 06:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is probably a broader discussion to be had in regards to WP:TRIGGER as well. I can point to a lot of academic research that would disprove the claim {{tq|A trauma trigger only exists in people who developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of actual psychological trauma.}} For example, moral injury presents similarly to PTSD, and involves trauma triggers, but the mechanisms of those triggers and interventions required to treat it are very different. Dfadden (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:It won’t go anywhere. WP:SNOW is falling already and it just violates too many policies and guidelines. If they want to try and change the consensus on trigger warnings and suicide prevention resources they can go to village pump, where it will also fail. Dronebogus (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::On the general subject:

::It is always appropriate to have a discussion on an article's talk page, when the proposed change will only affect that one article. It is not the only possible place for the discussion, but it is an appropriate place.

::RFCs are an advertising mechanism. Here are the main ways that this RFC is being advertised:

::* Talk:Suicide methods is not really "a relatively obscure talk page". It's watchlisted by 37 editors who have actually checked that talk page [NB: the talk page itself, not just the article] one or more times during the last month. This is above average.

::* The RFC is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture, which gets [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_and_culture about 300 page views per month], and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.

::* An invitation to that particular RFC has already been sent to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3AEC31E8E&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns3=1 seven randomly selected participants] in the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, all of whom are WP:Extended confirmed editors (at least; two are admins). Most of them also have higher-traffic User_talk: pages than average, so the notices will be seen not only by the seven participants but also by any talk page stalkers.

::* It's linked in Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requests for comment, which is linked or (mostly) transcluded on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requests_for_comment&limit=100 95 pages].

::* The page views for the talk page yesterday (i.e., the day the RFC started) are almost double compared to the recent average (56 yesterday vs 32 for the last 90 days).

::* It is advertised via Wikipedia:Article alerts on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%2227+Mar+2025%22+%22Suicide+methods%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1 14 WikiProject pages].

::* Ten editors have already commented. (The RFC has only been open for ~44 hours so far; the number will probably double before it ends).

::Additionally, editors are free to place manual invitations on related pages (such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death), so long as the venues and messages comply with the Wikipedia:Canvassing rules. Since the OP has expressed a very strong opinion in the RFC and is responsible for more than 20% of the comments posted in that section so far, I strongly suggest the use of the {{tl|please see}} template if they choose to post any such notifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have edited this post to correct the link. -- Least Action (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Duck soup|1=Socks blocked, articles semiprotected for now. If semi doesn't work, request WP:ECP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)}}

For some reason i can't send a protection request.. maybe because I'm too new. Please protect Persepolis F.C. (women) and Asian Club Championship and AFC Champions League Elite records and statistics for at least one year. The blocked sock, User:Herostars will back every one or two weeks using new accounts. Mohebiana and Ramshirtt are his last ones. Banning this accounts will never help. We need a at least one year protection. If more information needed please let me know! Edard Socceryg (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have semi'ed both for six months due to the long term disruption. If you haven't already, please file an SPI for the new accounts. Star Mississippi 16:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Star Mississippi Is this protection enough? Sock edited the articles after the protection too. Maybe Pending changes can help? Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If semi is not enough, then one should go for requesting extended confirmed protection. However after taking a look it seems semi is enough. -- Least Action (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:ضجه بزن حقیر کودن Ramshirtt (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Google translates that as "Shout, you stupid bastard." Maybe it would be better translated as "Cry, you stupid bastard." Either way it seems to merit a block for that editor, whatever happens to the sockpuppetry case. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Pending a SPI for a more permanent solution, I have blocked @Ramshirtt one week for personal attacks (see also their talk page) and @Mohebiana one week for edit warring (14+ reverts!). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Star Mississippi @Rsjaffe I didn't filed a SPI for this two new ones. Can't you simply block them as duck? (same edits and behavior after getting blocked). In Persian Wikipedia we used a higher page protection to solve the problem. But idk if that's what is needed in a bigger Wikipedia. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• I indeffed the two blocked accounts, the new one, User:Capitanss1, and tagged all three.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Numerous articles by created by 1971asif and their sockpuppets were created after 1971asif was blocked. Many appear to be well-written and worth keeping and improving. Clearly it's OK to delete these per WP:G5 but is it mandatory even if the article is useful?

• 2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt
• 2024 Bangladesh presidential resignation protests
• Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh)
• Ameer of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami
• 2024 Bangladesh Ansar protest
• Gaza List
• Khan Talat Mahmud Rafy
• Minister of Industries (Bangladesh)
• Minister of Liberation War Affairs
• More Than I Want to Remember
• Murder of Emmanuel Chidi
• Anna Maria Mussolini
• National Office Against Racial Discrimination
• OHCHR report on 2024 protests in Bangladesh
• Presidency of Hussain Muhammad Ershad
• Seal of the president of Bangladesh
• Settimana bianca
• Toby Cadman
• Vice-Chancellor of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology

That's a lot of content to delete.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

: No, absolutely not. This is a justification for deletion, but not a mandate for depriving readers of useful content. BD2412 T 02:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:G5 is never mandatory, but I would suggest being very cautious about assuming the articles are {{tq|well-written and worth keeping and improving}}. {{noping|1971asifintisar}} was originally blocked for copyright violations, so unless someone wants to go through the sources with a fine-toothed comb and verify that that's not an issue, it's probably safest to just delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Extraordinary Writ, thanks for the caution. I've removed the deletion tags for most of these articles. This weekend, I'll try to check out the copyright question. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:In these particular cases, I also want to point out that G5 only applies when there are {{tq|no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions}}. Some of these articles have multiple editors, with some having contributed significantly. Determining which ones are fully eligible for G5 is a more demanding task. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I've run 19 of these through [https://copyvios.toolforge.org Earwig's Copyvio Detector]:

::*2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=2024+Bangladesh+alleged+judicial+coup+attempt&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*2024 Bangladesh presidential resignation protests

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=2024+Bangladesh+presidential+resignation+protests&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh)

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Aftermath+of+July+Revolution+%28Bangladesh%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Ameer of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Ameer+of+Bangladesh+Jamaat-e-Islami&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*2024 Bangladesh Ansar protest

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=2024+Bangladesh+Ansar+protest&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Gaza List

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Gaza+List&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Khan Talat Mahmud Rafy

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Khan+Talat+Mahmud+Rafy&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Minister of Industries (Bangladesh)

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Minister+of+Industries+%28Bangladesh%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Minister of Liberation War Affairs

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Minister+of+Liberation+War+Affairs&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*More Than I Want to Remember

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=More+Than+I+Want+to+Remember&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Murder of Emmanuel Chidi

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Murder+of+Emmanuel+Chidi&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Anna Maria Mussolini

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Anna+Maria+Mussolini&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*National Office Against Racial Discrimination

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=National+Office+Against+Racial+Discrimination&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*OHCHR report on 2024 protests in Bangladesh

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=OHCHR+report+on+2024+protests+in+Bangladesh&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Copyvio unlikely]

::*Presidency of Hussain Muhammad Ershad

::**[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Presidency+of+Hussain+Muhammad+Ershad&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 two sentences may or may not be copyvios]

::Earwig's detector started timing out so I did not check these articles:

::*Seal of the president of Bangladesh

::*Settimana bianca

::*Toby Cadman

::*Vice-Chancellor of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology

::A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@A. B., just noting that the "violation unlikely" is an assessment of a selected sources overlap with the article, not an assessment of all of the articles sources. In this particular case, a lot of the sources cited aren't in English; so if there was overlap between the two-- such as the editor translating text from the articles and then pasting them in. On that subject, a few of them appear to be unatributted translations of foreign Wikipedias; compare National Office Against Racial Discrimination with :it:Ufficio nazionale antidiscriminazioni razziali, for example. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• In the past, I've gotten into disputes with editors when I've untagged CSD G5s and the argument the taggers made is that good or bad, sock content needs to be deleted to discourage sockpuppetry. I don't have strong feelings about G5s but I find it ridiculous when editors or admins go back years and years to delete content from sockpuppets who were blocked a long time ago but which was never addressed at the time of the block. It has the look of going to look for pages to delete. I don't think it serves a purpose to dissuade sockpuppetry when the articles are deleted 3 or 4 years after the sockpuppet has been blocked.

:My main question is one that remains unclear to me even after 11 years, some folks have the perspective that another editor can "take responsibility" for a sock article and so it doesn't get deleted. But other admins seem to have never heard of this informal arrangement and I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't written into policy any where. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Liz! From the pages I looked at, it appears an editor tagged pages created by Bruno pnm ars, a sock who was blocked earlier this month. As such, the concern about looking for socks blocked years ago feels off topic to this conversation. Also, can you explain what you mean by this: {{tq|some folks have the perspective that another editor can "take responsibility" for a sock article}}? (she/her)]] (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thebiguglyalien explained. I was thinking "take responsibility" could refer to people adding substantial edits to the article, which is explicitly covered under G5. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Significa liberdade, I'm sorry if my comments were "off-topic" from the original subject of this discussion thread. I just thought I'd add on to it. No, the "taking responsibility" has nothing to do with other editors having made contributions to an article created by a sock. It typicallly has happened when we have a surprise sock that has spent years as an editor but who gets discovered and blocked. Their contributions have been otherwise fine. I've had editors come to me as ask to "take responsibility" for some of the better articles written by the old editor/newly discovered sock and, in return, they assume responsibility for any problems that exist with them. It's not an arrangement that many admins will agree to but it gets asked pretty regularly when we have longstanding editors who are found out to be sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for the clarification, and apologies if my original message came across as rude! That wasn't the intention. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::The ability to take responsibility for sock edits has been my understanding as well. I got curious, so I did some digging and found WP:BLOCKEVASION, which touches on some of these ideas. Namely,{{tq|Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.}} Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't believe we have policy documentation with respect to G5 specifically, but as Thebiguglyalien notes, we do have it for block evasion in general, and it also follows from common sense: if a sock fixed a typo, we would not re-introduce it, and even the most pedantic admin would permit the edit being reverted and then reinstated by a user in good standing. The same principle can be extended to entire articles, as creation isn't distinct in this respect from writing content into an existing page. When I have tagged or processed G5s, the critical point is often that content written by a sock cannot be trusted: with rare exceptions, our socks are usually dedicated to creating policy-violating content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Vanamonde93, well said. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm happy to take responsibility for the articles I untagged. I hardly did a GA review but they look OK to me. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I concur that G5 is permissive, not compulsory. That said, I think that leaving content created by blocked/banned users is a slippery slope and one we should be very careful about going down. Keeping material created via block evasion should be done only rarely. Specifically when deleting or reverting their edits would be clearly disruptive. Keeping such content in most cases effectively sends the signal that you can still edit the encyclopedia while blocked or banned, as long as you do so constructively. That is not a message I think we want to be sending. IMO these pages should all be deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• We should always do whatever is most helpful to the reader, which is providing the information they are seeking. If G5 is going to be abused to the detriment of the reader in this way, then it should be repealed as a basis for deletion, and the articles at issue should be sent for discussion, as any rational deletion process would require of content that is not itself identified as a hoax, a copyvio, or otherwise failing to meet criteria that are neutral with respect to the editor who created the article. BD2412 T 03:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• I have an alternative suggestion. Why don't we make blocking/banning optional? More like a suggestion. It would save AfD from becoming a giant time sink. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Blocking and banning, of course, are already optional. We employ a litany of alternatives before we choose to exercise these measures. BD2412 T 04:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I meant compliance with the block/ban being optional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I see the point you’re making, but this is an encyclopedia before it’s a court. The best way we can discourage editing by banned or blocked editors is by shuttering the entire project. Retaining valuable encyclopedic content is more important than sending the right message to sockers. If we catch them early, super. If not, I really don’t think we should be knocking down the walls of the place just because they laid some bricks after getting fired. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• User:BD2412, I agree that the reader needs to be served--but G5 deletion isn't abuse. I mean, deleting something per G5 is not abuse of G5. The slippery slope noted by Ad Orientem also includes, I believe, "rewarding" the banned/blocked editor, which is not a thing we want to do, although measuring that reward is impossible. Personally I would not just slap G5 on everything, not at all, just like I wouldn't hit "mass revert" on every sock--but I will when their edits are poor, and as User:Vanamonde93 said, above, there's also the matter of trust. Anyway, to answer the question in the heading: no. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• If the set of articles listed above are accurate, well written, and not copyvios, then I would indeed consider it abusive of deletion privileges to delete them all. BD2412 T 04:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :If we are going to allow people who are blocked/banned to edit the encyclopedia, and that is what we are talking about here, then we need to have a serious discussion about WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN and WP:EVADE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I really hate the spirit of blindly reverting anything done by a blocked sock. This is an encyclopedia, not a… group quilt for the successfully rehabilitated? No, quality articles should not be deleted. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::No, that's not it at all. Banned does not mean punish. It means that we want to give good editors a break so they don't have to deal with a troublemaker indefinitely. A dedicated troll can sprinkle edits to let targets know that nothing can be done to stop them. Deleting contributions by banned users is done to retain good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Being adamant about blocking sockpuppets of users evading their original blocks or bans, then turning face and being unwilling to deter their return by deleting their contributions, makes me wonder why we even bother blocking sockpuppets in the first place. The community either wants their contributions here or not. ✗plicit 04:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Rewarding ban/block evasion through retention incentivizes ban/block evasion. This is an observable fact about the current state of affairs with respect to ban evading actors, at least in contentious topic areas. If the objective is "always do whatever is most helpful to the reader", then why not un-ban/unblock the actor that created the content and allow them to edit, or at least provide them with a way back, a middle ground, an alternative to socking. Make a choice. Can a ban evading actor create or update content, yes or no? Reliance on subjective/non-deterministic judgements by individuals or small groups about their content is, in my view, one of the many weaknesses in the countermeasures against ban evasion that are probed and exploited every day, especially by partisan actors. They know that there is a decent chance that their content will be retained or not even noticed. This is something I struggle with, the cost vs benefit of ban evading actors and their content, many of whom are very experienced and knowledgeable editors. At one extreme is the notion that the dishonesty of the actor has been established, and we should not be providing content written by dishonest people, or that rules should be enforced. At the other extreme is an "always do whatever is most helpful to the reader" approach, which has a high cost (in contentious topic areas) that is not usually paid by the people who espouse the view. The optimum solution that disincentivizes ban evasion and helps readers is not clear, to me at least. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to look at the scale of this issue as part of the ARBCOM5 case by asking how many revisions are by ban evading actors in Wikipedia in general (1 million randomly selected articles) vs a contentious topic area (PIA). See here. Bottomline, a lot of content is written by ban evading actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

What do socks think about our approach to deleting their articles? Two data points. One very effective ban evading actor (in terms of edit counts) told me via email it's not just "I resent my stuff being deleted" I really do want these people to stop burning down Wikipedia. Another very effective ban evading actor with many thousands of edits across multiple accounts nominated all of the articles created by a different ban evading actor for deletion. The other ban evading actor had the opposite valence in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They voted to retain an article created by a ban evading actor with the same valence as them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

1. The editor was blocked for copyright violations.
2. Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Presumptive deletion is also policy.
3. Returning nothing on Earwig does not mean it is not a copyvio. Translation copyvios and print source copyvios are a surprisingly regular occurrence.
4. The copyright investigation backlog is already bad enough, in part because the community cannot deal with copyright violating sockpuppeteers like this editor.

Delete them all. MER-C 13:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those arguing that we should be erring on the side of deletion. If they were blocked for content reasons, as appears to be the case here, and the content is good enough and we want them to keep creating socks to create more content, then their main account should just be unblocked. If we don't know if the content is good, then they should be deleted by default. Someone else can take responsibility per Liz, but the articles need to be thoroughly evaluated by that person and we need to actually hold that person responsible if problems are found later. If this were a case of an abusive user whose treatment of other users was so bad we had to block them, then it would be even more important to delete the articles. Completely disagree with the "what's good for the reader is keeping the articles" view in such cases -- otherwise we wouldn't have behavioral policies on Wikipedia at all. Sometimes we take a long-term view of what's best for readers, making sure other people responsible for writing/maintaining articles aren't subject to abuse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I find it highly irritating and undermining of the community when we do not liberally apply G5. This is most especially the case with long term abuse such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Slowking4 (going on for 13+ years now) where I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Slowking4&diff=prev&oldid=1189418088 vented about the futility of it all]. We not only coddle sockpuppets, we actively encourage them to create new content that meets our bar for inclusion, nevermind they have been abusing the project. It's like working side by side with the wiki equivalent of a convicted felon still serving time in prison because they create something. We get so process bound by our policies/guidelines that we lose focus. This has a seriously detrimental effect on other editors, yet we plod ahead with it anyway under the guise of "good content". If we're missing an article or three or 20 even out of 7 million on this project because we liberally apply G5, I dare say the project will someone manage to struggle on. Either we get rid of restrictions on G5 or we get rid of G5. The inbetween crap we're enduring now is simply enabling destructive behaviors. It's patently absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I’m really not offended by the image of accepting work from a felon who contributes valuably. This is not a prison. The whole point of blocking and banning is to serve the encyclopedia. If the encyclopedia is served, and we try to undo those contributions because they were made in violation of a block, we’re treating the block as its own end, more valuable than the encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with everyone recommending deletion. To add to the voices, this is my plea to consider the effect on your fellow editors. SPI and CP/CCI are basically always backlogged to hell, because these are unpleasant tasks most editors don't want to get involved in. Don't make this even worse for the few editors who handle these things. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

If an article has no actual issues with it (difficult in this particular case due to the potential copyvio issues), including it meeting notability requirements and all other such needs, then I consider deletion of such an article solely under G5 because a blocked editor was involved to indeed be abusive and little different from vandalism. As I've stated several times before, if a banned editor is able to make a separate account on the project and stop the actions that got them banned in the first place and are able to make content without being harmful to other editors or our readers, then we wouldn't know and also wouldn't care. It's the harmful activity that's the problem. Because we're here to build an encyclopedia. That is the full goal of this project. Silverseren^C 15:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• G5 deletion is our main defence against banned editors. The main difference between a banned editor and a non-banned editor is that for anon-banned editor, we delete only their bad contributions; for a banned editor we should delete all contributions no matter the quality. Not enforcing bans via G5 just invites sockpuppetry and harms the community that builds our encyclopaedia, so the short term loss of a few articles is well worth it. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see how it harms the community to retain encyclopedic content. I think deleting proper articles is harming the community far more. Because the community is here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, WP:BRV explicitly states {{tq|This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor}}. That is included because removing proper content is harming Wikipedia. Again, I consider such actions to be vandalism and treat it as such. The editors that delete proper content that has no issues with it are vandalizing Wikipedia and those editors are vandals. Editors who unilaterally push G5 without actually considering the value of the content involved are a net detriment to this project, in my view. Silverseren^C 18:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The trouble there is the problem mentioned by @Vanamonde93 and others above - the content usually is not proper, and not always in ways that are immediately evident. Many editors are blocked because we simply cannot afford the time and burnout it would take to be constantly cleaning up after them. You're quite right that if a banned editor created a new account but stopped the actions that got them banned, we wouldn't know and wouldn't care. These editors who have been blocked again for socking, though, they got caught - because they didn't stop the actions that got them banned.
• ::I don't want us to be deleting good content either. If you spot a sockmaster creating what looks like good content, please, please try your best to convince them to come in from the cold. If they're getting frustrated with unblocks, feel free to ping me in. I promise to be patient with them, and I'll do everything I can to get them back on track. -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I already mentioned that this one is more complicated due to it being a ban for copyvios. But there's plenty of banned editors who were banned for behavioral and not content issues. For all we know, they could have made new accounts since and stopped the behavioral problems, so we wouldn't even be aware. Silverseren^C 18:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Right. But the ones we're catching - the ones who have article creations eligible for G5 - are not those editors. If you see pages getting G5'd and you think it would have benefited the encyclopedia to have them, the best thing you can do for the encyclopedia in that moment is talk to the blocked editor and try to get them to turn things around. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::It harms the community by so watering down our defense mechanisms, i.e. block and ban, as to make them meaningless by encouraging defiance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Except I never said to stop blocking and banning any sockpuppets that are found. But unilaterally deleting content (especially since that frequently also results in not only reintroducing typos and vandalism and deleting articles that had other contributors, which I have seen happen plenty from the G5 hardliners despite G5 even explicitly saying not to do that) is not helping the community in the slightest. Silverseren^C 18:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Oh yes, it is. If an editor writes FAs from Monday to Friday and then spends the weekend attacking other editors with homophobic rants, we need to protect these other editors by truly kicking out the disruptive editor. The only way I know is to delete their contributions until they give up. Content is not more important than the community. —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::And yet it's the latter that's the reason for the banning. If they continued doing that with another account (or anyone else did), then they'd be banned again. If they made an account and only wrote FAs, then we wouldn't even know or care. Because the harmful behavior stopped. By the meaning of your argument, we should delete their articles even if there are substantial edits by other editors, since the point is to delete the banned editor's contributions over everything else. Is that your stance, Kusma? Silverseren^C 19:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::We are arguing mostly in hypotheticals here; it is rare that banned editors continue to sock but stop the problematic issues that originally led to their ban. In cases where a banned editor's creation has been substantially edited by others (not common in G5 cases) I would suggest to remove the banned editor's contribution as far as possible without removing the non-banned editors' work. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Where's the policy that says that community is more important than content? That seems to violate WP:5P1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Do we have any good reasons to believe that if we {{xt|delete their contributions until they give up}}, that they will actually give up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::In your opinion, is there a difference between a banned editor and a not banned editor in terms of contributing to the encyclopaedia? —Kusma (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::A banned editor is re-banned on sight. That is the difference. Now, if your question was, is there a difference between the content, then my answer is no. Any and all content should be judged on its own values and whether it meets our requirements. Silverseren^C 18:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::If an editor who is blocked or banned sockpuppets, and the articles they create have no substantive edits from other editors, then they should absolutely be G5'd. If they do have substantive edits from other editors, then they should not be G5'd. One solution I've seen on occasion for borderline cases is simply to revdel the article creation, removing the "credit" from the sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Let me ask you this. If I go and add a sentence or two and a ref to one of said articles, why is that now a totally fine article in your opinion? What was wrong with the other content in the article prior to that edit that now is fine because I made that addition? I know that the answer is that the content is fine. And it is precisely because of that that I consider deletion of said articles as vandalism. Because there's nothing wrong with the articles and the content. Silverseren^C 18:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Removing the credit is pointless. The banned user has in such a case been allowed to contribute. —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Some of the articles I listed were about the 2024 political upheavals in Bangladesh. They looked not only useful but very important. I’m traveling now but it’s on my list to note those articles and this discussion at the appropriate WikiProject. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tqq|If I go and add a sentence or two and a ref to one of said articles, why is that now a totally fine article in your opinion?}} "A sentence or two and a ref" =/= "substantive edits", so please don't presume what I'm saying. Also {{tqq|it is precisely because of that that I consider deletion of said articles as vandalism}} this is extremely concerning coming from an editor of your stature. WP:NOTVAND. Calling admins who are adhering to policy vandals is a bold strategy, Cotton.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Actually, I thought that adding content and sources did count "substantive edits". Non-substantive edits are things like citation formatting, changing the categories, and adding maintenance tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Also I would like to point out that WP:BANNEDMEANSBANNED is policy. {{tqq|Bans apply to all editing, good or bad}}. This really should end the discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::: The Bushranger, do you have examples of those revision deletions? I interpret your description as hiding the username, which removes attribution and may introduce a license violation, per WP:Revision deletion#Notes on use (policy), Username hiding (copyright attribution issues). A similar hypothetical case was discussed at WT:Revision deletion/Archive 5#"where all changes will be reverted". Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::: Unfortunately no, it's been a long time since I saw it done. I know it has been done in the past, but that's all I've got. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Nobody is obliged to delete anything. Editing Wikipedia is not compulsory. G5 says what it says. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is a very interesting conflict between reader benefit and community ego. 2600:1014:B1E2:B2F7:3DDB:248A:A85E:E601 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think you can talk about a "community ego". An ego can be associated with an individual, not a group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Let me suggest a different point of contention here. Most of us in this conversation are administrators which means that if we want to have a look at deleted content to see if, for example, copyvio concerns are actually warranted, or if parts of it can be salvaged for the betterment of the encyclopedia, we have the ability to do that. However, the average editor does not have such access. Their path to even being able to examine any substantial number of deleted articles is far more convoluted. A non-admin can't even see the edit history of the deleted article to determine independently whether the deleted content really did represent the work of a single blocked or banned author. If the entire goal of G5 is to deter banned editors by denying them the reward of having articles in our most visible space, then why not just move suspect articles to draft, and require substantial additional contributions as a prerequisite for restoration to mainspace? BD2412 T 16:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Because it leaves their contributions intact. They are still editing the encyclopedia. If there is a significant desire to allow blocked/banned users to edit, then the proper course is to open a community discussion about substantially amending some pretty core policies, i.e. WP:BLOCK/BAN/EVADE/BMB etc. As long as these remain policy, reversion and G5 are the normative response to contributions created in defiance of being blocked or banned. Yes, some exceptions do exist. But they are exceptions. And they are fairly narrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Why do these exceptions exist? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :BD2412, that's a great idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|If the entire goal of G5 is to deter banned editors by denying them the reward of having articles in our most visible space, then why not just move suspect articles to draft, and require substantial additional contributions as a prerequisite for restoration to mainspace}} - I do not follow this logic. If the goal is to deter banned editors by denying them the reward of having articles, nothing following "then why not" should include keeping the articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• : {{re|Rhododendrites}} Moving to draftspace is not the same as "keeping the articles". If it was, article creators in AfD wouldn't fight tooth and nail to keep their articles from being moved to draftspace as an ATD. I remind you that an article in draftspace is automatically deleted if not worked on for six months; that six months gives other editors an opportunity salvage good content that is useful to readers to keep in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 01:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::And since the Draft: space is where articles go to die, I think we can assume that most of them will end up deleted.
• ::The drafts might turn into a honeypot for catching the newest socks for that editor. Overall, I like this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I have left messages at six relevant WikiProjects informing them of this discussion and asking them to look at these articles:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh#Discussion at WP:AN re: speedy deletion of articles created by a banned user
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Austria#Discussion at WP:AN re: speedy deletion of articles created by a banned user
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Discussion at WP:AN re: speedy deletion of articles created by a banned user
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo#Discussion at WP:AN re: speedy deletion of articles created by a banned user
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Animated films work group#Discussion at WP:AN re: speedy deletion of articles created by a banned user
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights#Discussion at WP:AN re: speedy deletion of articles created by a banned user

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure what the point is, as this is neither an AfD discussion nor an appropriate forum for discussing changes to long established policy. If these pages were in fact created by a banned user, then the only question is whether or not they meet the narrow criteria for an exception to G5. That's pretty much it. If this is some kind of attempt to urge a rush of editing in an effort to make G5 inapplicable, that could be seen as WP:GAMING. FTR I have not yet looked at the editing history of the pages, but if no one else gets to them first, I will likely begin the process of reviewing them soon. FWIW I concede it is possible some of the pages may have developed organically to a point where G5 might not be applicable. But edits made after this discussion began will not be counted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ad Orientem, I posted my question to clarify policy, not to change it.

::::As I read G5, it seemed to allow but not require deletion. I saw a lot of what looked like useful content, some of it about major events in Bangladesh, going out the door and came here.

::::Based on 1971asif's edit history, copyright concerns were raised. In response, I did copyright checks on most of the articles and found few problems. I have worked with Earwig's tool in the past and realize the probability score it gives can be misleading so I compared sentences in the sources to sentences in the articles before noting whether copyright issues were likely. I can't rule out the possibility of plagiarism from offline or non-English sources but my understanding is that 1971asif's previous copyright violations were not particularly hard to spot. As I noted previously, I'm comfortable with these articles.

::::I also did not intend this to be a quasi-AfD. I listed the articles here so people could see what I was referring to. I posted notices at the six WikiProjects so better informed editors could see if there was something I was missing.

::::I have not compared all these articles to see if they're translations of articles from other Wikipedias without proper attribution. A quick spot check indicated at least one that was similar to another Wikipedia's article; I don't know which version came first. I will check these for that and fix any issues but only for articles that aren't deleted.

::::My main focus is content, not behaviour. I think BD2412's suggestion to move these articles to draft space as an alternative to immediate deletion is a good one. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We keep coming back to the core issue. Either the community has the power to ban users, or it doesn't. A ban means that people are not allowed to edit the encyclopedia. You and the others arguing for retention of these pages, are basically saying that a ban does not mean a ban and as long as their editing is constructive they should be given a pass. Such a position would have severe implications for the community's ability to impose any kind of order backed by credible sanctions. I'm sorry, but it's time to call a shovel a shovel. That's F***ing bonkers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{re|Ad Orientem}} If a sock of a banned editor fixes an obvious misspelling or corrects an obvious factual error, shouldn't that fix be reverted to the wrong spelling or the wrong information on that reasoning? BD2412 T 02:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No. That falls under one of the three explicitly stated exceptions to WP:EVADE. We should not restore a version of a page that is obviously disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How is restoring a disruptive version of a page different in principle to deleting a quality article? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No-one has established there is a quality article. All that's been done is to run the pages through earwig. CMD (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Zanahary I am going to repeat for your benefit what I have already said above, multiple times. If you want to change policy, this is not the right venue. I suggest WP:VPP where you can propose that blocked and banned users be allowed to edit the encyclopedia as long as they are playing nice at the time. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It’s disappointing that instead of answering this question and acknowledging a drawback to your approach, you’re choosing to be snide and pretend like the issue has already reached a settled consensus—when this discussion full of longtime editors, including administrators, who don’t consider G5 deletions necessarily good for Wikipedia is proof that the question is unsettled. I’m asking you: why are there exceptions to this rule? And what makes these exceptions so different from the case at hand? The sanction-integrity-first philosophy you favor would forbid even the leaving-alone of minor corrections by banned and blocked editors. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• If you spend enough time dealing with LTA socks, then you'll soon realize that WP:BANNEDMEANSBANNED is in the best interest of all editors. Outside of reinstating vandalism, I revert all their contributions on sight. Letting LTAs contribute in any way just encourages the behavior more, and in the end, does more harm than good for everyone. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I’m of the opinion that extensive experience whack-a-moleing problematic editors does not give one privileged understanding of how to balance content and conduct concerns on Wikipedia—this is an encyclopedia first; any “balance” that would remove valuable encyclopedic content from Wikipedia in order to advance the punishment/effective silencing of editors who’ve misbehaved is completely upside-down in a way that I think has to do with the maddening, frustrating sort of work that one overengaged with tackling LTAs does, at the detriment of their engagement with Wikipedia’s content side, which is the only reason for any other “side” to exist. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• We should do what benefits the reader. If the articles have no issues – other than the authorship, then they should be kept. If you really want to "punish" the blocked user by making sure they're never credited with writing articles, why not just erase them from the page history? As a hypothetical example, let's say some user gets blocked for vandalism, then years later comes back as a sock and becomes a prolific author of many FAs – should the hypothetical editor be blocked/banned and all the FAs deleted because "they were a sock!!!"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• People keep saying "what benefits the reader" as though it's self-evident. If it always mean keeping content, we should just get rid of our behavioral policies. Otherwise, we can acknowledge that for those extreme cases where we have to block someone from editing completely, maybe it "benefits the reader" to protect the people who write/maintain the rest of Wikipedia from abuse, to save them time so they can create other articles, and to ensure the reader isn't being served incorrect or copyvio content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• If an editor is being disruptive then they no doubt should be blocked, but that doesn't mean all their good contributions need to be erased as 'punishment' because they were 'being bad'. In my made-up example, do you think all the FAs should be deleted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :G5 does not apply to any pages that have had substantial good faith contributions from non sanctioned editors. And YES, blocked and banned editors are not allowed to edit the encyclopedia. The quality of their contributions are immaterial. Again, see WP:BMB which is WP:POLICY. Any other approach severely, arguably fatally, undermines the ability of the community to enforce its rules. That we are actually seriously discussing this is nuts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :: So let's say the many FAs have no substantial contributions other than the sock who was blocked years earlier for being disruptive – should they be deleted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes. It's either that, or we abandon our ability to impose meaningful sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::: And who would deleting the FAs benefit, aside from perhaps a few editors feeling satisfaction because "ooh we punished him good for his disruptiveness from 10 years ago haha!"? Block those who are actively harming the encyclopedia; but if they're not, then wouldn't that just make the blocks/deletions purely punitive? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@BeanieFan11 If you want to argue that the community should not have the power to ban users, you are free to make your case. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Good luck with that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::: Not saying that at all. I'm saying: why should we block productive users and delete all their content as "punishment" for old actions? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::For the 100000000000th time, because if we allow it to stand, we are saying block evasion is OK as long as you are engaging in constructive editing. And then the community has to spend X amount of time figuring out if their edits are in fact constructive. Further it means the community does not have the power to actually ban anyone and blocks effectively become meaningless. Here is the bottom line. BAN/BLOCK/EVADE/BMB are all POLICY. IMO they are core policy that are essential to the smooth operation of the project and the ability of the community to set enforceable P&G. Until that changes, I will enforce them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::This is such an abstract argument. Why is the essence of a block more important than the very real content of an encyclopedia? You’re arguing from “we HAVE to be able to make perfect blocks” as though it’s more important than building an encyclopedia, rather than a tool developed to enable the building of an encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Our policy is: {{tq|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::As far as parsing what policy says: The preamble of WP:EVADEBAN makes it clear we need to balance competing concerns. Its subsection, WP:BMB, specifies that editing by banned editors is forbidden, but I don't see this necessarily implying that if it did happen, it must summarily be reverted. Another subsection, WP:BRV, specifies such edits may be reverted, but immediately specifies "this does not mean the edits must be reverted". Finally, G5 is a speedy deletion rationale that implements this when removing such contributions means deleting a whole article, but it doesn't itself impose a must where none already exists by policy. (As I wrote in my top-level comment below, I respect the arguments of those arguing reversion/deletion should be the default outcome in almost all such cases, though I don't think that's reasonable. Here I'm just addressing the fact that some of the arguments in this discussion in favour of "compulsory" deletion are going beyond what policy currently actually says.) Martinp (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::: {{re|Ad Orientem}} Have you even considered the possibility that a blocked or banned editor might create an article just to make us go through the trouble of deleting it under G5? That they might be mocking us by tricking us into deleting content that is objectively good for the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 02:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@A. B. I just deleted an unrelated page on G5 grounds. It took me 2 clicks and about 3 seconds. If you add in the amount of time it took me to review the page and ensure it was a valid G5, you could add maybe 30 seconds. I'm not troubled by the lost time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::In that absurd hypothetical, the disruptive user is spending perhaps hours to days to evade in a way an admin can handle in seconds. There can't be many worse ways to mock. CMD (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::A sanction is given meaning by its effect on Wikipedia—not its effect on the resolve of the renegade socks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• An essay I once wrote on this issue, which may still be of interest, can be found here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• I have some sympathy with the "banned means banned" position, but I still haven't seen an answer from its supporters to the question implied by my rather terse statement above. If we are to say that something must be done then we are saying that someone must do it. Who? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• On balance, I favour G5 deletion to be optional not mandatory. I respect the argument that bans are effective if and only if they are enforced. However, if an article is good, deleting it purely because of revelations about its authorship is counterproductive for our overall mission of building an encyclopedia. One of our fundamental policies, WP:IAR, guides us when our (other) policies clash, and this is such an instance. (I'm not saying "keep the articles by invoking IAR" rather "look to IAR as a north star in situations where our principles and policies provide inconsistent guidance", such as here.)

:With that in mind, I'm all for nuking such content when there's increased suspicion it might be a copyvio, biased, etc., where scarce community time would need to be redirected to give it sufficient scrutiny. In particular, we do not want our content to be manipulated by allowing editors deliberately excluded from the community continuing to indirectly control where the community spends its time. But I support admins exercising their discretion by saying, "wait a moment, this is good stuff, no need to remove it".

:Having been around WP (if not very active) for nearly 20 years, I'm pretty sure there's a small but significant number of active users who are better-behaved reincarnations of users who flamed out previously. (Some) people mature and get better socialized over time, and the personality type to spend hours on WP is pretty rare. And persistent. While I endorse the philosophy of WP:BMB, I'm fine being pragmatic about it, the priorities being encylopedic quality first, community health a strong second, and policy enforcement per se a distant third. Martinp (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Adding: For these specific articles, I would have seen nothing wrong in an admin deciding to G5 them (at least those without substantive edits by others, I haven't checked), with the argument that there is risk in letting content that turns out to have been added by a user banned for copyvio issues stand, a risk that is not worth the effort to mitigate. I also see nothing wrong in an admin hesitating and asking for guidance, then them and others doing a reasonable level of verification against copyvio, and then deciding the risk-return is in favour of keeping the content. Which seems to be what has happened here. Martinp (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't support blocked users getting articles they created removed unless they are being blocked for like making stuff up or making bad edits. It's just a way for the person banning to get a victory lap in on the person they got banned. It also goes against WP:OWN. If nobody owns an article, how can an article be deleted because the user was banned? That implies someone indeed does own the article. KatoKungLee (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :That's a complete misunderstanding of WP:OWN. Nothing in policy remotely supports such an interpretation as even a cursory reading would show. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I disagree. Assuming the article's contents are fine, why does it matter whether a blocked or unblocked user wrote it? It implies someone owns the article and assumes no one else had any kind of input on it.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Because WP:BANNEDMEANSBANNED. Which is policy. Given that's policy, I have no idea why this discussion is still going on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Seems like a reasonable interpretation of OWN to me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::That...I have no words for the concept of twisting WP:OWN this way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Not super helpful. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::It's as helpful as claiming this Wikipedia policy somehow violates WP:OWN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Policies are not settled edicts that are necessarily unable to contradict one another. If "read the existing policy" were all it took, there would be no discussion happening here. I agree that the automatic reversal of any banned/blocked contributor's contributions amounts to treating their contributions as their property, which goes against the spirit of OWN. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am responding to comments others have made regarding my actions. I started this thread to get guidance, not change our policies or start a deletion discussion. Based on others' responses, I then examined 15 of the 19 articles for copyvio issues.

Editors have commented that my use of [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia Earwig's Copyvio Detector] tool to test those articles was just a cursory check for copyright violations, including close paraphrasing. This is not true. After running the tool on these articles I checked them line by line with the sources most likely to have shared content. This was not a 100% test but it was a big enough sample that I should have seen more signs of trouble if these were plagiarized articles. I think the two copyvio scenarios I didn't test are unlikely:

1. I did not check if a foreign language source was plagiarized:
2. *1971asif and his sock puppets have done almost no editing on the Bengali or Italian Wikipedias.
3. *My understanding is that 1971asif previously plagiarized English language sources. In the case of the 2024 Bangladesh constitutional crisis and the 2015 Italian murder of Emmanuel Chidi, there was so much English language digital coverage it would have been easier to just lift English text than copy and then translate text from Bengali or Italian sources.
4. I did not check if a printed source was plagiarized.
5. *There was such an abundance of global online coverage of the Bangladesh upheavals and the Italian murder I see no reason someone would transcribe newspapers and magazines.

I've looked at a lot of content over 20 years including copyright problems. After 90 minutes with these articles, I'm 75% confident that all of them are reasonably reliable. I'm 90% confident that the nine most important articles (the Murder of Emmanuel Chidi and the Bangladeshi political articles) are reasonably reliable.

Having previously been an admin myself, I'm certainly familiar with banned users and sock puppets. Those banned editors that don't reform, we find sooner or later. 1971asif's socks did something to trigger a SPI. For whatever reason, however, I'm not seeing critical problems with the 15 articles I scrutinized.

I did not originally come here to opine on these articles' deletion but since many others have, here are my thoughts:

• It may be a waste but I won't cry if someone deletes Anna Mussolini's article. It would sure be a shame, though, to delete the nine articles that cover important events.
• I see both sides of the G5 debate. I think pragmatism is called for here; call it a mix of caution and WP:IAR.
• Given all the discussion above, by now if deletions are called for, I hope that these particular articles would be discussed at AfD, not speedily deleted.
• Should the more important articles get deleted, I hope someone here then steps forward to fill the resulting content hole.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Question: does the reason for the block/ban matter? For example, User:BrownHairedGirl was one of our most productive contributors, and was ultimately banned solely due to her temperament in disagreements. If it were discovered that she was creating articles through a sockpuppet (and to be clear, I have no reason to believe such a thing is happening), would those be treated any differently from articles created by a sockpuppet of an editor banned for copyvios, hoaxes, or promotional editing? BD2412 T 03:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• If it was, that would be violating policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• While I think BrownHairedGirl was wrongly banned (and am very far from alone in that sentiment), were she to sock we would be duty-bound to use whatever tools we have available to put a stop to that in exactly the same way as anyone else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for doing those checks, @A. B.. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• I worry that this discussion has gotten bogged down in the hypotheticals. Frankly I don't care too much about the philosophical issue of what to do with an editor evading a block to create FAs; it is a distraction from the far, far more common question of how to handle imperfect-but-plausibly-useful material. I maintain as above that deletion isn't mandatory in this circumstance, but the caveats are critically important; deletion isn't mandatory iff another editor substantially revises the content, or - in my opinion - verifies that the content is policy compliant to the same extent that they would their own work, such that they explicitly take responsibility for it. {{U|A. B.}}, based on a long history interacting with the South Asian political POV-pushers, I do not trust the content of an article such as Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh), which is on a fraught topic - but if you, A.B., have checked every citation the way you would if you were writing a page, and explicitly said you had done so on the talk page, I would perhaps pass on a G5. Otherwise, we ought to be nuking the page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Vanamonde93, you raise a very good point. I got sucked once into a South Asian article dispute, then dragged to ANI and accused of all sorts of stuff by a partisan editor (later banned). So I have painful experience of what you’re warning about! The worst South Asian fighting I’ve seen involves Hindu nationalists vs Muslims; theses articles are more about internal Bangladesh politics. That said, I mostly examined them for copyvios; tomorrow, I’ll go look again for other stuff.
• :Vanamonde, thanks for taking on South Asian edit-warring; it’s too intense for me. Our South Asian articles are important and I appreciate your work to keep them honest.
• :—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I regret to inform you that these internal Bangladesh politics are fraught on Wikipedia for precisely those reasons. You may be interested in, for example, Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India and its current AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{re|A. B.}} Internal Bangladeshi politics are fraught in exactly the same way as the others, and this particular dispute is rife with the same nationalist POV-pushing, as Asilvering points out. If these articles were written by an editor in good standing, and I subsequently found them full of NPOV violations, I would likely ask for the author to be sanctioned under CTOP procedures. Are you willing to accept responsibility for these creations to the extent that you would accept the consequences for any policy violations therein? If not, then with respect you have no business declining a G5. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::As I said, I’ll look at these tomorrow. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Yeah, just to bring this back to the articles in question, I did a quick spot check and I could use a second opinion re: source integrity. I'm finding a fair few statements that don't appear to supported by the sources they cite, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject area to say anything past that. For reference, I picked out about 10 sentences total written by the sock from three article (10 overall, not each) and found potential issues with seven of them.
• :Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh)
• :* :{{tq|In total, around twelve judges resigned or were removed as part of the efforts to restore confidence in the judiciary and cleanse it of perceived biases}}
• :** That's sourced to [https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/cj-5-other-sc-judges-resign-3674021], which does not say... anything there. It says that 6 judges resigned, at that they resigned for safety reasons due to the protestors threatening to beseige their houses.
• :** Closest I've found to a RS backing this claim up is an AP news article [https://apnews.com/article/bangladesh-hasina-yunus-student-protest-chief-justice-9b3f6070d35e60e5e4bd9b47d9976690] saying that they resigned as part of a re-organization attempt.
• :*{{tq|Under emergency provisions in Article 72(1), the president had the authority to dissolve parliament, but critics (Kamal Hossain) argued that this provision was never intended to be used as a pretext for removing an elected government and bypassing parliamentary processes}} (Sourced to [https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/post-hasina-bangladeshs-multiple-challenges/] and [https://verfassungsblog.de/bangladesh-through-the-prism-of-doctrine/])
• :** The Diplomat does not support this statement, and does not mention Kama Hossain.
• :** Second source is about the legality of the interim government and contains an argument that it's in the spirit of the law, albeit illegal. Does not mention Kamal Hossain, critics, or back up this statement.
• :* {{tq| Under Article 56(1) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, the prime minister is required to be a member of parliament, but Yunus did not hold a parliamentary seat, creating significant legal uncertainty about his legitimacy}}
• :** Entire paragraph is about Yunus's legitimacy - the VOA source [https://www.voanews.com/a/bangladesh-at-crossroads-as-it-pursues-sweeping-constitutional-reform-/7803698.html] does not discuss Yunus's legitimacy, or discuss anybody talking about his legitimacy. It's about creating a new constitution.
• :2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt
• :* {{tq|This meeting was perceived as a prelude to issuing a ruling that could undermine the interim government and potentially pave the way for Hasina's return}}
• :** Sourced to [https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/court/students-issue-2-hour-ultimatum-resignation-cj-other-appellate-division-justices] which doesn't say that. It quotes a member of the interim government saying "The Chief Justice, who is part of the fascist regime, has called upon a full court meeting without consulting the government. We won't tolerate any conspiracy. We had called for his resignation earlier, and we'll take strict action if the CJ tries to give any incitement" and a statement from the student union saying "We'll topple the fascist judicial system today. Also, we'll destroy all the fascist teachers' associations and syndicates at educational institutions immediately". While I don't think it's unlikely that you could find a source making the above claim, that's not what this one says.
• :*{{Tq|to secure their support and involvement in overseeing the transition}}, in reference to the interim government reaching out to the international community
• :**Sourced to [https://www.newagebd.net/post/Foreign%20affairs/242079/un-eu-china-welcome-yunus-led-interim-government-in-bangladesh], which is essentially just a list of all the countries which made statements about the interim government. It does not comment on the interim government's motivations or goals.
• :Presidency of Hussain Muhammad Ershad
• :* {{Tq|during the lack of farsightedness and betrayal of some of the DUCSU leaders in 1980s, anti-Ershad movement lost its appeal among the students}}
• :** Cited to [https://web.archive.org/web/20190331192854/https://www.observerbd.com/2014/01/24/2478.php], or, at least, that's the next citation and they were added in the same edit. Failed verification.
• :*{{Tq|In February 1989, Bangladesh Chhatra League, Bangladesh Students Union and the leftist student organisations gave a joint panel under Chatra Shangram Parishad (Students Action Council) won the majority of the posts in the DUCSU election and Sultan Mansur Ahmed became the Vice-President of DUCSU. But this committee was proven as a failed one to challenge the regime and could not contribute much in the anti-Ershad movement.}}
• :** Cited to [https://web.archive.org/web/20190331192854/https://www.observerbd.com/2014/01/24/2478.php]. Failed verification. In fact, the source says "It also played a major role in rebuilding the war-torn Bangladesh in the first half of the 1970s. Rising against the Ershad regime and leading the democratic revolution from the front was another success of DUCSU."
• :Again, not familiar enough with the subject area to say what's true or not, or figure out if these are good-faith mistakes or POV pushing. But anyways, anybody up for a second opinion? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{re|GreenLipstickLesbian}} I appreciate the diligence: this is precisely what I meant above about content from blocked sockpuppets often not being trustworthy. In my view this is clear evidence that we have no business ignoring the banning policy to preserve these. I would strongly suggest deleting them under G5; if there were not active discussion here, I would tag them myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Question: Alias (2013 film) OK, we have live - meaning created in 2017 and still an article as of 2025, though of course WP:BLP applies everywhere - article that may well either meet WP:G5 or not be a WP:G5 candidate.

:: It was created 21 Jan 2017 by 2227movies

:: It was edited on 21 Jan 2017 by Mauro Lanari

:: It was edited on 12 Feb 2017 by Canadiancinema

:: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scallywag787/Archive for more context here

::As far as I can see, it meets WP:NFILM. Technically it might not meet WP:G5, as the additions there may avoid outright speedy deletion. Or were they pretty much cosmetic updates, that did not avoid the substantive WP:G5 issues there?

:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::No, that is not eligible for G5 no matter what. It was created by a sock, yes, but the sockmaster was not blocked at the time that article was created. WP:G5: {{tqq|This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block}} (emphasis in original). {{tqq|A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. It's not mandatory so "must" isn't the right word. For many blocked or banned editors, a mass G5 is the right approach, but not for all.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• I really hope that those admins in this discussion who are strongly advocating for deletion of the articles at issue under this allowance are grasping the deep unease that many have expressed with the deletion of information based solely on the actions of the author, rather than the validity of the content. I think there is room for compromise to bring about a better result for readers. BD2412 T 03:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :There is little evidence of strong concerns for preserving the content, or at least any strong enough for action to be taken to assess the validity of the content. It was noted that the creator was blocked for copyright violations near the very start of this discussion, and the community has strong norms about copyright violations that often lead to revision deletion at the least. Checking and removing copyright violations requires some editing work and time. However, over the almost week since the deletion tags were removed near the start of this discussion, the first three articles listed (2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt, 2024 Bangladesh presidential resignation protests, Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh), I did not check further down the list) have received a grand total of zero edits. CMD (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :: I am referring to the unease with G5 as a general principle, even in cases where there is no suspicion of a copyvio. I would repeat my earlier proposition that suspect articles be moved to draftspace for review, and remain there until reviewed. BD2412 T 04:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::: WP:BANNEDMEANSBANNED is policy. If a blocked or banned editor evades that ban and creates content, there is nothing to review. The fact at least one editor here explictly said they consider application of WP:G5 (also policy) as being vandalism is what gives me a {{tqq|deep unease}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::: How is an editor to determine whether there was usable content for an encyclopedic subject? Admins are not gods, nor infallible. Our work must be subject to review by the community. BD2412 T 16:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I'd never vote for an admin candidate who supported strict application of G5. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::So you consider the work of editors evading blocks and evading bans to be more valuable than admins following Wikipedia policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes, I consider the retention of valuable encyclopedic content infinitely above effective prohibition of editing. The value of the latter is completely dependent on the former, and the enactment of the latter at the expense of the former is both ridiculous and destructive to the encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::You'd better go and propose changes to the sockpuppetry policy, the banning policy, and the speedy deletion policy then, since the fact of the matter is that position says that blocks are worthless since you approve of evading them to create {{tqq|valuable encyclopedic content}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I guess I’d better! Thanks for the advice. In the meantime, I’ll vote honestly, which is what this exchange was about. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::: It is also entirely conceivable that an admin overzealously looking to enforce G5 will either miss or undervalue additions by a non-suspect editor, or mistake an innocent editor for a sockpuppet of the banned editor and delete contributions that are not not actually the product of a blocked or banned editor at all. If the edit history of an article has been wiped from editor view by deletion, how is the typical Wikipedia editor to check these things? Admin actions must be transparent and reviewable. BD2412 T 03:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::...wow. Just wow. Way to not WP:AGF! You're assuming rogue admins are roving around just looking for articles to G5. This is very much not the case. When an editor is confirmed as a sock and blocked, then things get G5'd. If they're {{tqq|delete[ing] contributions that are not not actually the product of a blocked or banned editor at all}} then the {{tqq|innocent editor}} has also already been blocked as a sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::: It is abundantly clear from the discussion above that there are admins who are chomping at the bit to delete things under the rationale of G5. I can think of few ideas more dangerous to this project than the proposition that admins are incapable of making mistakes. There is no question that an aggressive enough G5 deletion campaign will capture some articles for which additional substantive edits were made by uninvolved editors, and I have little doubt that over the long history of this project, some editors have incorrectly been deemed sockpuppets of banned editors. BD2412 T 16:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::I don't know how many G5 deletions are done without speedy deletion tags but in the case of those that are tagged, there's always a second editor involved. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::{{tqq|It is abundantly clear from the discussion above that there are admins who are chomping at the bit to delete things under the rationale of G5.}} Only if one reads this with the assumption of bad faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::: There are admins who have expressly stated in the discussion their intent to delete content based solely on its provenance, without consideration of the reason for the block or ban, and particularly without consideration of what benefits readers of the encyclopedia. To the extent that admins have expressed a desire to delete even substantively unproblematic content (i.e., accurate, well-sourced, well-supported, non-copyvio material) without consideration of any alternative to deletion, there is nothing there to which an assumption of good faith can be accorded. BD2412 T 19:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::I do not desire to delete substantive good contributions by banned editors, I just believe it should be done. Either allow the editor to contribute (=unban) or do not allow them to contribute (and then enforce it). I do not know a method to enforce a ban on contributing other than deleting contributions that have been made against the ban. If we are unwilling to enforce a ban, we should lift it. You can personally choose not to enforce the banning policy in a particular instance, but please do not ask other admins to ignore a policy you do not like. —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::: {{re|Kusma}} I do know a method to enforce a ban on contributing other than deleting contributions. Move them to draft space and require independent review and contributions by another editor before they can be restored to mainspace. BD2412 T 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::: Except that still has the blocked editor's evading contributions existing either in draftspace (which blocked/banned editors cannot edit) or, worse, if it is {{tqq|restored to mainspace}}, in the mainspace. It's clear you don't like the blocking and banning policies, and that's fine, we're allowed not to like policy. But we as admins must follow policy, and suggesting a policy you don't like be worked around is Wikilawyering at best. Either formally suggest the policy be changed or grit your teeth and bear it, and in the meantime stop assuming bad faith on the part of admins who state that they will follow Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::: A banned editor creates an article in mainspace. A regular editor comes along and makes substantive edits to expand and improve the article. Should it then be deleted, to prevent the banned editor's edits from persisting? If not, what difference does it make whether those edits were made in mainspace or draft space? Surely you know that most draftspace pages end up getting deleted under G13 anyway. With respect to the policy, I don't need to change it at all. It is within my rights as an administrator to restore every single page ever deleted under G5 to draft space, if I so choose. I'm not so choosing. I'm just advocating for a more considered application of a non-compulsory deletion rationale going forward. BD2412 T 21:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. G5 deletions have often made me uneasy for the reasons for the reasons given above; we're deleting content because of who created it, not for reasons specific to the content itself. That said, there are strong arguments that we shouldn't trust content created by someone who was banned. One, there's the underlying reason for why they were banned. Two, a banned user can't engage in discussion about the content. Three, the moral hazard: there's ego at work in seeing your work on Wikipedia. If it persists, that encourages the banned user. I've seen this dynamic at work for over a decade in an area where I edit, and I have to admit that we didn't get control of the situation until most of the banner user's contributions were refactored or purged outright, even where the topics were notable. If the topic is notable and important someone in good standing will write about it. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, interesting, but doesn't seem to be going anywhere – what a surprise! I think I looked at about a dozen of these pages, but deleted only four of them (1, 2, 3, 4 – anyone who thinks those deletions were mistaken should go ahead and restore them); for the others, it seemed to me that there were too many contributions by others for G5 to apply. I'd have liked to delete them per WP:BMB/WP:DENY, but did not feel justified in doing so. A couple of random observations: WP:SPI and WP:CCI are two of our biggest timesinks, so contributions that run afoul of both are particularly unwelcome, and summary deletion (where possible) a particularly good way of dealing with them; removal of copyvio content is automatic and usually immediate, but there's also nothing in policy to stop people from summarily removing all sockpuppet content from a page in much the same manner – page deletion is not the only option available. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate your careful approach, @Justlettersandnumbers. None of those were on the list above. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, {{u|A. B.}}; yes, that's why I made a point of listing them here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Re: "page deletion is not the only option available"; draftification is also an entirely reasonable option. I would guess that most mainspace articles that get moved to draft after the article creator has been blocked eventually get deleted as G13 anyway, but at least the opportunity then exists for regular editors to review and improve the topic if it merits an article. BD2412 T 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::(NB indent increased above) {{u|BD2412}}, draftification might work for a recently-created page with no major edits from other users, but that page can be deleted under G5 in the usual way. Many pages (~80%?) created by this particular sock are over ninety days old, so a priori ineligible for draftification; draftification of any page that has enough third-party edits to make it ineligible for G5 is disappearingly unlikely to 'stick' for more than a few minutes. And anyway sends quite the wrong message to the sockmaster. What we want to say is "drop it, you're wasting your time and ours", not "we've moved it to where your next sock can play with it undisturbed". The point of a deterrent is to deter, not to enable. I'm going to step away from this discussion now, as I don't think I have more to contribute to it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{re|Justlettersandnumbers}} I am only proposing draftification for pages eligible for deletion under G5 anyway. I would go so far as draftification and stubification if there are content concerns. BD2412 T 21:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I support this idea. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::With respect, this is a terrible idea. A very large proportion of content that is G5 eligible comes from editors who were banned for problems with their content, CTOP NPOV violations and UPE/Promo being the most common concerns. These editors are evading blocks with the express intention of creating content that violates policy. I have argued above that G5 deletions are not absolutely mandatory, but we seem to be suggesting here that they're completely unnecessary, or that the content can be treated as viable by default, which is, sorry, just bonkers. I'm not going to get further into the weeds here - this discussion has gotten far too philosophical - but I will note that I intend to continue tagging and deleting under G5 unless I see strong evidence as to it being unhelpful, and per GLL's research above the specific article's that triggered this debate should absolutely be nuked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: We have already established in this discussion that we are talking about deleting articles irrespective of content quality issues, including copyvio and spam concerns. If it's spam, use WP:G11. If it's a copyvio, use WP:G12. I would even support created sub-rationales to G5 where copyvio is suspected or G5 where COI/UPE/spam is suspected. If the sole purpose of a deletion is to WP:DENY a sockpuppet without consideration of issues with the article, or where those sorts of issues are clearly absent from the article, then draftification -- with specific instruction that the content can not be restored to mainspace without administrative review confirming substantial improvement -- is the best option for regular editors and readers. BD2412 T 01:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::FYI, I have begun cutting back 2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt to something a little more than a stub. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{green|draftification is also an entirely reasonable option}} is only true if there is an exception to WP:COPYVIO for draft space. It's not directly addressed, but I am not confident such an exception would have community support. CMD (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I checked most of the articles. They look ok. If there are copyvios, they’re small and fixable. See my comments above.

::::::Articles with known copyvios need to be fixed or deleted in my opinion. I don’t think draftification is a good choice since it means Wikipedia is still knowingly hosting copyright violations viewable by the public. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::: {{re|Chipmunkdavis}} Copyvios are speediable under WP:G12, therefore, WP:G5 need not even enter into that discussion. I am proposing draftification absent copyvio issues. Pure spam also has its own deletion rationale, for which G5 need not enter into the discussion at all. BD2412 T 03:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:G12 doesn't need to enter into the discussion if G5 is followed. Your proposal requires people to check for copyvio issues, which is already one of our longest backlogs. CMD (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think a salient point is that some of these articles covered important topics (constitutional crisis in major democracy and a globally publicized racist murder within the EU). 95% or more of G5 articles are not what I’d call important. Administrators are chosen in part to make judgement calls in applying policies that sometimes very deliberately leave some wiggle room in interpretation to allow for edge cases. It’s why we have human administrators, not bots deleting content. Ditto hallucinating AIs. (Not yet anyway.) —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. CMD (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the importance of the articles strengthens the G5 argument rather than weakening it. There is a much higher chance of their recreation by a good, good-faith editor, and on the other hand there are also much higher stakes for the article being problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:copyvios are not speediable under G12, blatant copyvios are. Likely copyvios other editors can't access the source for or where there is a history of source fraud, copyvios involving close paraphrasing cannot be G12-ed. Articles with extensive, but not all-encompassing copyvios cannot be G12-ed. Articles which are blatant copyvios of non-English sources sometimes get declined. These have to be dealt with individually, a process which my own experience can often take upwards of several hours per article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• I wrote an essay on this topic: Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. In summary: no. The spirit of G5 descends from {{slink|Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Edits by and on behalf of banned and blocked editors}}, which states: {{talkquote|Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.}} Similarly, WP:G5 does not mean that administrators must delete pages just because they were created by a blocked or banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to delete. For example, if you were already thinking of sending a page through AfD or PROD because of lack of notability or some other reason, G5 lets us save community time and delete right away because the user should not have been able to create the page anyway—but if your natural instinct was to let the article/page stay up, then as an admin, you have the discretion to let it stay up. Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Update: After spending... don't ask how many hours looking at the sources, I've AFD-ed one of the articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a good illustration of the problem: to clean up after a blocked sockpuppet, we need someone like GLL to spend hours looking at sources, and then AfD participants to also spend an additional bunch of time, and an admin to close the discussion... for a single article. That's not sustainable, and that's why we have G5. -- asilvering (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Note that I put an ”in use” template on the judicial coup article and started trimming it before going to bed last night. This morning, I was surprised to see it taken to AfD. If important, notable but suspicious articles like this are to be deleted, AfD is the better route. Still, I am chagrined that I wasted 2 hours researching this with a template on it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Sorry, when I started my research the template wasn't up. When I said "hours", please trust me that I wasn't kidding. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 16:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::This is an excellent illustration of what many of us have been saying in this thread - two good editors have spent hours of their time attempting to clean up content that is likely not rescuable because it is full of policy violations of the same sort that got the editor blocked in the first place. This is why G5 exists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::: No one is required to research content that has been moved to draftspace, and if it goes untouched for six months, it disappears anyway. However, if an editor wants to do the research, it's there for them to find. BD2412 T 17:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The fear I have, if this content was in draftspace, is that a good-faith newbie (or even experienced editor) might look at it and go "Huh, that seems okay" and move it to mainspace. We can't actually enforce that anybody check the content. And, ultimately, I wouldn't support sanctioning somebody who was taken in by a touched-up (LLM?) article that had been WP:REFBOMBED like this, in the same way that we're not mad at people who fell for the old Doug Coldwell articles and GA-ed them. The sock put a lot of effort into falsifying sources and making these seem legitimate - but judging from the very first sentence of this article, where they cite an article that's about a completely different separate set of events but just so happens to include the words "Bangladesh" and "coup" it's very clear to me that this is not a legitimate article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Indeed. We have historically really struggled with this kind of thing. NPP and AfC reviewers cannot be expected to do all this - they're already overworked. And we don't have enough GLLs to get through them all either. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::: Well let's say, hypothetically, that you had a one-click solution to move the article to draftspace, move-lock the page so that admin review would be required to restore it mainspace, and template the page with a warning that this was initially created by a blocked or banned editor, so there would be no confusion about its status, with a corresponding categorization, so that there would be an automatic notification if the template was removed out of process. BD2412 T 19:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::This seems more convoluted than just asking an admin to email you the deleted version as a reference and starting over. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::: For one article, perhaps. If there are hundreds? BD2412 T 20:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Seems rare enough that someone would have hundreds of articles live with no substantial edits by others at the time of their block, but if that were to happen, no method of thoroughly checking them will scale IMO. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::"We have a simple policy for dealing with this. I don't like it, so I'm going to suggest that we create a whole different process with multiple steps of programming/coding required to replace it". BD, we get it. You think G5 is the worst thing since unsliced bread. But you are really Wikilawyering, assuming bad faith of other admins, and coming up with some frankly absurd hypothetical "solutions" to a issue that the majority doesn't believe is an issue at all. G5 is optional. If a sock somehow made a FA before being blocked that somehow didn't have substantive contributions from other editors and somehow completely checked out with regards to policy, then it wouldn't be G5'd. The vast majority of block-evading content created, however, is - again, calling a spade a spade - trash. Wikipedia may have no deadline, but it does only have volunteers, and suggesting that these volunteers be made to do literal hours (as GLL proved!) of work when two clicks could resolve the issue (with the subject, if it was truly notable, very relikely to be created by another editor in good standing) is not a good look. Wikipedia has issues that produce negative experiences for the encyclopedia's readers possibly starting with the fact GNG has come to be regarded as holy writ, but that might be just me but G5 is not one of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::: No one is suggesting that volunteers be made to do a minute more of work. No one is required to work on drafts any more than they are required to work in any other space. However, drafts at least exist for those who choose to work on them. BD2412 T 22:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::95% of G5s are no-brainers. I think GreenLipstickLesbian has the right idea - take the occasional important edge cases to AfD for the community to decide. Or to do what I started to do, which was to cut the article back to a 2 to 3 paragraph stub with lots of references for future expansion. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::This is not an edge case in terms of encyclopedic value - it is an article full of verifiability issues and resultant NPOV issues in a contentious topic. This is a situation where we are genuinely better off with no information rather than partially false information. The research, cleanup, and AfD are all a waste of community time - with the same time investment we could have written a better replacement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::If an article needs to be cut down to a stub following an evaluation of all involved sources, it is going to be easier to just rewrite it from scratch. CMD (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::The question is: who will rewrite it from scratch? It’s easier for me to cut down an article down to a reliable stub than it is to create something de novo on a topic with which I’m unfamiliar. I’m not an admin so I won’t be able to see the original article. I’m willing to stubify the more important articles, but I’m not going to start over and build new articles. I’m not going to invest 10-20 hours creating each article. I’m a fixit guy, not a GA or FA writer.
• :::::::::::::::So which one of you is volunteering to write this article from scratch? Or do we just not carry this content for a few years? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::It's not a matter of GA or FA. If I'm editing the existing work of others, it's a substantial time investment to double check existing content against references, while also figuring out what else references say, and why information is arranged as it is. Writing from scratch on the other hand, only requires step 2 of those 3. CMD (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::Per GLL's analysis, I'm not sure it even is notable enough to be a standalone article. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• {{outdent}} These articles will be written in due time by wikipedians in good standing, when those contributors deem it appropriate. By keeping material written by known bad actors, we encourage bad action. Urgency is a poor substitute for reasonable caution. If the pages' loss seems such a tragedy to User:A. B., perhaps they will edit outside their normal willingness to make sure they are recreated properly. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Someone should close this rambling complaint. I don't see an outcome or agreement anywhere in sight. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Got it. Loud and clear. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Following the AfD closing as delete, I've gone back through the listed articles above and re-tagged a few. I did not tag those which seemed to have significant contributions from others, those which went through AfC, and one which has already been kept at AfD. The ones remaining were mostly related to Bangladesh, which is the topic which has been mentioned as being most affected by POV pushing, which might be indicative that problems were mostly present in this topic. I did not check the article sI didn't re-tag for copyvio however. I did sense check a couple of sources on Seal of the president of Bangladesh, but found similar to GreenLipstickLesbian that they often did not even mention the article topic. (Note that this article is not the National Emblem of Bangladesh, although small edits by others seem to have catted it assuming it was.) CMD (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Howdy all,

I recently stumbled across {{ping|AramilFeraxa}}'s recent block of Breath1Fire for cross-wiki abuse - having taken a look at their edits, I'm reasonably sure Breath1Fire is the same user as SelfStarter2, a known sockpuppeteer. Filing an SPI for Breath1Fire seems utterly pointless, as they've already been gblocked; however, SelfStarter2 and his associated socks have not been gblocked. As such, my question is whether there's a way to investigate further/conclusively link the two for the sake of extending the gblock, or if I should just file an SPI. I've asked AramilFeraxa for their input at Meta, but figured I'd ask here as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:In fact, after looking at the contributions of FireBreathMan, who was conclusively linked to Breath1Fire, I'm absolutely sure they're the same user as SelfStarter - they've used the same "Fine as it was" edit summary, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohmyday&oldid=1256889036 placed the exact same phrase] on their user page. Pinging {{ping|Chipmunkdavis}} and {{ping|Cutlass}} as users who dealt with them at Commons. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi The Kip, I didn't get this ping. If there are recent edits, then SPI can use checkuser if there is a behavioural match. If there is no recent activity from a known sock and a suspected sock, then they can't be compared in such a way, so you would need strong behavioural evidence. CMD (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Ieithyddnewydd is editing in languages he has no clue about. His edits of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingrelian_grammar are wrong. He doesn't understand standard Kartvelological transliteration and spelled ǯveş- "old" as წვეშ- instead of ჯვეშ-. Then he took Hewitt's paper about Kinship lexicon without understanding Hewitt's transliteration scheme so now we have such wonderful inventions like "ბიჲია biyia" that is supposed to men uncle (instead of ბიძია biʒia!).

I also note that he's edited Bats page but he clearly doesn't understand Georgian alphabet. Here are the offending diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mingrelian_grammar&diff=prev&oldid=1264085903

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mingrelian_grammar&diff=prev&oldid=1264102296

212.58.114.225 (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::The reporting IP has been blocked as an open proxy. The reported user was not notified on their user talk page. The edits were at least a month ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It would still be nice to know if the complaints had any truth to them. Anyone know Mingrelian or Georgian? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with concern about the accuracy of the article even though the edits are old. However, the last edits to the page are from OP, so it looks like the article now incorporates OP's concerns. From OP's editing history, I'm inclined to believe that OP knows the topic but is curmudgeonly.

::::In short, I recommend shelving the complaint as stale and leaving the article at its current state.

::::Ieithyddnewydd has edited other language pages, but none since February 6, so I'd leave those to others editing those pages to identify and fix. This is a chronic problem with niche pages: hard to know when they're right or wrong, but that's how Wikipedia is: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. I did drop Ieithyddnewydd a permalink to this discussion so they can see the concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|2=Resolved-ish|1=Please see phab:T390512 for updates. (But please don't comment just to say you're experiencing the bug.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Howdy all,

This is The Kip commenting from an IP (I'm happy to do things to help confirm that). When attempting to edit a page a few minutes ago after filing an SPI, I got hit with a {{tq|Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data}} error, and it recommends I log out and back in. However, I then can't log out, as that causes an {{tq|Invalid CSRF token}} error.

I switched to a different browser, which showed me logged out - when I tried logging back in, I then got hit with {{tq|There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies.}}

Anyone know how to fix all this? For the moment I'm locked out of my account. 2600:4040:2306:BE00:75EB:3720:3FB6:28F (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! This is WFUM (Wildfireupdateman) commenting from an IP. It appears this issue is being discussed on Phabricator (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T390512) and according to AntiComp there's an SRE on the case. 76.133.89.169 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! I cleared my cookies, believing that to be the issue, but it didn't solve anything - happy to know it's a sitewide thing rather than an issue unique to my account. 2600:4040:2306:BE00:75EB:3720:3FB6:28F (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::There has been an uptick in routine errors lately. I got some database errors earlier today. Neither of y'all's accounts is blocked or locked, so I'm afraid there isn't anything admins will be able to help with till this is resolved sysadmin-side. Sorry.

::... Okay I typed that message up and then got a CSRF error too. Well, hi! It's Tamzin. Hopefully this passes soon... 2601:80:4884:7100:31A6:6F63:2739:5325 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi, this is thetree284, it happened to me too. When I try to log in to my account, It won't let me because of this. 2001:569:7C59:1E00:D4E8:F146:BB0F:E120 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: Hi, it's PhilKnight - same with me. 2A00:23C6:53C3:4601:F620:8C6F:AF04:C92C (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Accounts are showing up in RecentChanges again. For anyone still seeing csrf errors, just hold tight I guess. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yup, my account is operating again. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hey guys, I'm back and it seems I can log in now! thetree284 (talk and edits) 03:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for CheckUser access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacy and comment at the consultation until 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|CheckUser consultation, March 2025}}

{{hat|WP:FORUMSHOPPING. OP now indef'd after ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Atop|Content dispute, failure to notify other users, personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello,

I’m reporting improper and persistent removal of a sourced, academically published reference from the Markov chain article.

The citation is from a peer-reviewed academic book, published by Wiley, one of the world’s top scientific publishers:

📘 Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation (2017)

https://www.wiley.com/en-it/Markov+Chains%3A+From+Theory+to+Implementation+and+Experimentation-p-9781119387558

Despite the source being policy-compliant under WP:RS and WP:V, it was removed by user User:Malparti with the summary:

"Gagniuc is not an acceptable source, this has been discussed in detail"

Moreover, Malparti appears to be from Romania, as is the author of the source — raising serious concerns about possible conflict of interest or personal bias.

I anticipate that the term “self-promotion” will be raised — preemptively, I’d like to clarify:

• I am not the author of the source.
• The book is peer-reviewed, published by Wiley, and directly relevant to the topic of Markov chains.
• Adding a neutral citation from a scientific publisher does not fall under self-promotion by any Wikipedia standard (WP:SELFPUB, WP:COI).

I have seen similar patterns over time — multiple users taking turns to enforce the same exclusion, using similar rationales. This raises concerns of sockpuppetry or coordinated editorial bias, and I may file an SPI if this continues.

I respectfully request:

1. Review of whether the removal of the Wiley source was valid.
2. Restoration of the citation if found compliant (as it clearly is).
3. Administrative attention to the pattern of exclusion and possible collaboration.

Thank you. EricoLivingstone (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:a) Content dispute: resolve it on the talk page. b) Here is what I assume is the previous discussion on the source; not exactly hard to find, as it is one of only four topics on said talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

{{hab}}

{{atop

| result = Already listed at CR. Someone will get to closing this massive discussion when they get to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

There was a RFC recently at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AI images#Relist with broader question: Ban all AI images? (!vote here). Starting on February 28, there was a discussion about banning AI-generated images from all Wikipedia articles (there was an earlier discussion, already closed, about doing so in BLP and medical articles). The RFC template has already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAI_images&diff=1283066254&oldid=1283058819#Relist_with_broader_question:_Ban_all_AI_images?_(!vote_here) been removed] by Legobot, but an admin should give a proper closure to the whole thing. Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|Filibuster in the United States Senate}}

I don't like this edit war, and the last one at least left a kind of a summary so I'm not reverting but this probably needs some eyes. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:At a glance, I wonder if sock puppetry is afoot. Might need semi protection -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::I thought about that too but only one of the accounts was new. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Indeed the last two to carry on the edit-war (User:Bananabread1334, first edit since January, and User:Swipe4004, 2nd edit since January), are both autoconfirmed. Any CUs passing, or is this off-line communication nonsense? Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The three most recent are technically unrelated, but I cannot speak to off-wiki coordination of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Does anyone think SP is a bad idea? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::EC protected for one week, and reverted to what appears to be the most recent stable version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Some EC editors have re-added the Cory Booker notafilibuster, but at least the edit warring has stopped. Consensus is a little iffy, but I think it's better than it was. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• It is sad to see Special:Diff/1283522196 point to an article explicitly saying "Booker’s speech was not a filibuster", though. Given the talk page discussion one would have thought that editors there would at least pick a journalist of the contrary persuasion as a supporting source. Uncle G (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• By the way: For what it's worth, Black Kite, although a few new single-purpose accounts have appeared to edit Cory Booker's marathon speech, which has also been protected, and a few dormant U.S.A.-politics-only accounts suddenly woke up, I suspect that the off-wiki coördination, as such, was simply the live news reporting of the event. It's of interest to politics aficionados, and (the AP report saying that there were people present in the gallery) we all remember how Congressional staff members like to edit Wikipedia, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=WP:Block|1=OP blocked indef for disruptive behaviour, violation of Tban and unblock conditions - FOARP}}

I'm back at AN to appeal my Tban from Maratha Confederacy. In my previous appeal [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive367#Garudam_Topic-ban_appeal], many editors were either hesitant or opined for weak support since only few days had passed since my conditional topic ban. However, now that more than 4 months have passed, there should be enough editing history to evaluate my behavior. Please also check my [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Garudam article creations] two of which (Battle of Bharali (1615) & Turbak's invasion of Assam) are GA nominee and one might get passed sooner or later, and please see my participation in productive [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&oldid=1280952303 discussions] mainly on Talk:Gupta Empire and have a good AfD participation [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Garudam+&max=500&startdate=&altname=] as well (I don't know if it counts in my litmus test or not). If this still isn't enough to regain trust, I'd be open to a weaker restriction, such as a 1RR limitation, to demonstrate a consistent pattern of constructive edits--eventually leading to a full lift of my topic ban. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 14:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support with 1RR restriction, appealable after three months (given their high rate of editing). Looking at Xtools report, @Garudam is using article talk and user talk more than before, and looks like good ratio of edits to talk. Interactions that I reviewed look collegial. Subsequent to writing this, analysis by others of the user's edits have displayed enough issues that I can no longer support this request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC) edited 17:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and recommend that the TBAN be expanded to cover Indian history; also would second {{u|CNMall41}}'s recent advice to them to step back from closing AFDs. I spot-checked an article Garudam wrote and even nominated for GA, and unfortunately the issues that led to the editor's original indef block (under their old username, Melechha) persist. Note that the issues that I am aware of relate to POV/poor editing of history-content using iffy sources and 1RR won't address this concern. PS: {{u|Courcelles}} in their block mentioned use of socks; Garuda, can you please list any other accounts that you have used? Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Abecedare among all my post-unblock edits, I have mostly made constructive contributions. I haven't closed any AfD discussions since CNMall41's advice. I'll quickly address the issues regarding the Battle of Mandalgarh on the talk page. As for the sock accounts, please see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Melechha this]---I haven't used any other accounts. Regarding my username and sock evasion violations, I have already paid the price and patiently waited for more than a year to restart my Wikipedia journey. If I repeat either of these mistakes, please bring it up, but all of this was in the past, and I have moved on. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Garudam, you recent edits in this area may be well-intentioned but IMO they have not all been constructive. For example:
• ::* The Siege of Chittor article you wrote has all the issues I listed at Talk:Battle of Mandalgarh, which is not surprising given that it is largely a duplicative article based on isolated sentences from the same pages of the same sources.
• ::* At Battle of Mandalgarh and Banas you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mandalgarh_and_Banas&diff=prev&oldid=1259750610 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mandalgarh_and_Banas&diff=prev&oldid=1279480178 reverted] to your preferred version of the page, which cites only (1) a century-old book [https://archive.org/details/maharanakumbhaso00sardrich/page/n1/mode/2up book written by a non-historian], and (2) a jumbled citation that refers to either a [https://old.mu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Book-No-81-History-Paper-IV-Medival-India.pdf non-RS set of poorly edited course notes] that don't support the content they are cited for, or some work of the a 16-17c court historian, Firishta.
• ::Cleaning up all this will require massive editorial resources, which are perhaps not even available. I hope we can prevent continued damage though. Abecedare (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Back then I may have made silly moves by adding non WP:HISTRS or WP:RAJ sources in Battle of Mandalgarh & Siege of Chittor simply because I wasn't aware of such policies and essays (these creations were before my block when I had less than 200 edits). Now if you ask me I can never contest for the addition of poor sources like Har Bilas Sarda (the page however reflects that he was a polymath but not a subject expert in historiography). In Battle of Mandalgarh and Banas I had actually added appropriate tags [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mandalgarh_and_Banas&diff=prev&oldid=1279481634] to deal with the issues. The non RS sources which were collaterally reverted was gladly [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mandalgarh_and_Banas&diff=prev&oldid=1261140624 removed] by {{u|Rawn3012}} before I can look into it, there's no question that I'd have removed those sources as well which is evident through my another revert after months [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mandalgarh_and_Banas&diff=prev&oldid=1279480178]. Basically my reasoning was that the use of inline templates and tags could have been a better approach to let other editors fill the gap in the meantime by replacing the dubious sources with academic ones. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Garudam, I don't know what you mean by "Back then" since the problems have demonstrably persisted, as I detail above. Both Battle of Bharali (1615) and Siege of Chittor, for example, were created after your unblock in Nov 2024. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thanks for pointing out the issues regarding Battle of Bharali (1615), It's going through GA, your inputs would be helpful. I'll address the issues shortly. The Siege of Chittor was first incubated through [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melechha2#c-EmeraldRange-20231101174400-Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Battle_of_Chittor_(November_1) draft] in my blocked account but later it was imported to this account in November 2024. I'll take responsibility for it and have already proposed to merge Battle of Mandalgarh with it. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• Update: In addition to problems with the articles that I spot-checked earlier (see here and here for details), which are largely still not resolved, similar issues have continued to arise with Garudam's editing during the course of this TBAN appeal. For example, here is a short analysis of close-paraphrasing issues in an article they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sualkuchi_(1636)&oldid=1282663887 moved to main space just yesterday]:

{{ctop|1=Latest example of WP:CLOP-violation (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bharali_(1615)&diff=prev&oldid=1282640060 here])}}

{{cbot}}

:Note that the quoted text in the table are consecutive sentences in the wikipedia article and the book. And it goes on in this vein. Given the ongoing issues I would now support an ARBIPA TBAN or a project-wide block. Abecedare (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oh dear. Well, three more and we can open a CCI... -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, that again looks like copy-paste-edit-publish. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Clarification: {{u|Abecedare}} & {{u|Asilvering}}: The pre-existed article was mispelled thus it was moved to a correct AT, not a move to mainspace from draft. I have fixed these issues promptly.

{{ctop|1=copy edited and worked in verbose, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bharali_(1615)&diff=prev&oldid=1282640060 fixed these issues as well]) – Garuda ^Talk! 16:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{cbot}}

:Courtesy ping to @Elli, who set the restriction in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Garudam, now the content you have written is far too far away from the source, and appears to have your own interpretations in it. Dympies (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unban and Support extension of topic ban to cover ARBIPA - This appeal is deceptive, the user has been flagrantly violating their topic ban for example:

1. On 21- 22 February 2025: *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1277080291]

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1276965434].

1. 25-30 January 2025

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1272942626]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1271738648]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1271737885]

1. 20 December 2024

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264120335]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264120363]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264120478]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264120514]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264120581]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264122963]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264123300]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264123433]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264125335]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264121080]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264121622]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Battle_of_Umbarkhind&diff=prev&oldid=1264121846]

25 November 2025

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bhupalgarh&diff=prev&oldid=1259458923]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bhupalgarh&diff=prev&oldid=1259458767]

In the last set of edits, they draftified an article that had been in the mainspace for years. This was highly disruptive and exactly what the ban was supposed to prevent and given the fact that their previous usernames were also inflammatory. I think their block needs to be extended to cover the entire WP:ARBIPA area given their history of disruption. Wareon (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Wareon: The first 5 set of diffs shows my reverts of sock edits and unrelated entries which doesn't get to pass WP:NLIST, we won't find any source either which groups the conflicts into a set for list relating to Bangladesh, from the talk page it can be seen that many editors have rightly echoed the voice [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Bangladesh#Anachronism]. For the diffs after that, I have to say that the Draft:Battle of Umberkhind was initially submitted by myself before my block when I had less than 100 edits, later another user started editing it and my watchlist popped up with these edits, unintentionally I reacted to them, for which I can only ask for a benifit of doubt. Since then (ie. when I had 200-250 edits) I haven't involved myself into any tban covering area. Lastly my previous username issue was already noted and sanctioned in my WP:NOTHERE block, I haven't changed my username to any other inflammatory name which could be a violation. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::These were topic ban violations. Your refusal to accept this further justifies the request to expand your topic ban to cover the whole WP:ARBIPA. Dympies (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I did not refuse to accept any violations, It's just some edits were made unintentionally (justification given above: as the draft was initially submitted by me a year and half ago) when I was evolving, when my edits were miniscule. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support WP:ARBIPA topic ban - The user has been disruptive not just in the Indian history area but also in the ARBIPA (Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) as whole. Their bludgeoning at Talk:Prayagraj [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1271626872#Requested_move_9_January_2025][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-TianHao1225-20250129044800-Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name] combined with poorly written and POV history additions to the said article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj/Archive_4#Gupta_Empire_section][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prayagraj&diff=prev&oldid=1275203633][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prayagraj&diff=prev&oldid=1275202776].As well as poor clerking at AfDs[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garudam/Archive_1#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nitin_Mehta] 1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_February_27#Ramayana:_Part_1] I think the original ban is not enough. Dympies (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The Talk:Prayagraj comments are far from bludgeoning. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-TianHao1225-20250129044800-Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name]: The closure was Tban'd and I responded all of the supporting comments as calmly as possible without going here and there [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250217165000-Abo_Yemen-20250217155800][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250211134100-CharlesWain-20250211032400][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250130171000-Abo_Yemen-20250130165100]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1271626872#Requested_move_9_January_2025 Here] I barely made two engaging comments. The further additions on the page is backed by putative sources, I'd urge to fellow editors for giving a quick read to Prayagraj#Gupta Empire and then give their opinions. For the AfD issues I tried to volunteer myself by closing and relisting the discussions, mostly I did good [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virendra_Sachdeva][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Coffin_Maker][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digging...][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madras_Central_(poem)][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Farmer%27s_Ghost][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kali_(poem)], however some as questioned by CNMall41 were instantly heeded and I didn't close or relisted any AfD since then, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_February_27#Ramayana:_Part_1 this] was endorsed, although It should have been indeed done at the hands of an admin. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::It is bludgeoning, you have made 23 comments there. The section on the Gupta Empire has statements such as "The Vishnu Purana provides an intriguing reference". Regarding your clerking of AfDs in ARBIPA, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virendra_Sachdeva#c-Garudam-20250302190600-Taabii-20250223184900 this relisting] was not needed as the consensus was already clear. Dympies (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::No please go through WP:BLUDGEON: "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." The reason why I made 23 replies alone is because I was addressing the issues of misleading edit summaries and misinterpretations of guidelines by another user, which later payed off as clarification for other editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Quincke-20250207173800-TianHao1225-20250129044800][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-CX_Zoom-20250130200200-Garudam-20250130191500][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Nemov-20250311131100-Toddy1-20250217182500]. May I ask what's wrong with "The Vishnu Purana provides an intriguing reference"? Scholars are free to interpret any texts. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Dympies, that relist was also done before the comment by CNMall41. -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I pointed that out because Garudam cited that relist in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Garudam-20250326130400-Dympies-20250326122600 their comment] as being "good". Dympies (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Speaking for myself, that one looks subjective to me, we can argue if it was bad or good (given the last calculated comment + 3 !votes aren't generally considered as "consensus"). Upon going through their relists [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internment_Serial_Number][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Nalos][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Patti] and keeps [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gedrosian_campaign][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HMS_Sword_Dance] it seems like mostly worked out well. Silent ink (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Even so, I take the responsibility for the closures and relists, I can only ask to kindly look on my good side that I backed off. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 18:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Rsjaffe. Considering mostly constructive contributions he needs to be given some slack, also he's been pretty civil and calm at discussions (like Talk:Gupta Empire#Undue origin?). However I haven't looked at other discussions, Talk:Prayagraj has problems from multiple editors but it isn't necessarily bad either. Waleed (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support with 1RR as some issues raised above or even come back here again after 6 months completion of the block. I don't know about any violations but overall his 8k+ edits give a shady clear picture if not good. I will note that SPI reports [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nomian/Archive#c-Garudam-20250314164400-Suspected_sockpuppets_4][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%8A/Archive#c-Garudam-20250112235200-Suspected_sockpuppets][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tiipu/Archive#c-Garudam-20250117143300-Suspected_sockpuppets_2] filed by him have been very helpful. NXcrypto Message 16:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) agree with Rsjaffe[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Rsjaffe-20250325154000-Garudam-20250325144400]NXcrypto Message 17:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and expand TBan to cover the whole area. Agree with Abecedare and Wareon. You were unblocked merely 4 months ago, but pretending that nothing happened. This is not a collaborative approach. desmay (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This appeal was made in consideration of previous Tban appeal [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive367#Garudam_Topic-ban_appeal], where editors (involving admins) suggested to come back after 3 months. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• It is difficult to understand why you are appealing the restriction so often before the standard 6 months period. While I am in favor of expanding topic ban to cover the whole ARBIPA, it makes sense to support reinstatement of indefinite block given the repeated violation of the unblock condition, as the editor is clearly making [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Bharali_(1615)#c-Abecedare-20250326182100-Sources,_paraphrasing_and_notability_issues the same mistakes] that led to the condition being imposed in the first place. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose repeal, and support extending TBAN to ARBIPA. In addition to behavioural issues found by Wareon, Dympies and Abecedare, Garudam has encouraged a user to make edits to disputed content under discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EducatedRedneck&diff=prev&oldid=1278288049]. Whether it is strictly against the rules or not, it is bad form, and it goes to show that Garudam is willing to ignore best practices in order to achieve their goal/push their POV. With everything I've read in this thread, it seems this user has a hard time collaborating and therefore I support an indefinite topic ban from the contentious ARBIPA topic, broadly construed. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• :While its not against any rules, it's probably not very well thought out for you to !vote here, especially as your link points to a dispute regarding your own conduct which resulted in a sanction. This could very easily be seen as WP:GAME, or attempting to get revenge on another editor who you feel has personally wronged you. In closing the thread you initiated here, you were warned by {{u|abecedare}} to let this go at the risk of further potential sanctions. Dfadden (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, the link does not point to a dispute regarding my own conduct. It points to a comment Garudam made on a user's Talk page where they encouraged them to make changes to disputed content under active discussion. I don't see how WP:GAME applies, can you quote the relevant part?
• ::Why do you think Garudam has personally wronged me? It wasn't Garudam who started the ANI process against me and it wasn't Garudam who voted for an indef ban, I have nothing against Garudam personally. I do take issue with their behaviour, though. I genuinely think it is disruptive and not conducive to collaboration. Clearly, I am not alone in this. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|It points to a comment Garudam made on a user's Talk page where they encouraged them to make changes to disputed content under active discussion.}} And that directly references the ANI related to your disputed RfC closures. In that ANI discussion which can be found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182, you said of Garudam: {{tq|When the close didn't go their way, despite them being the only editor with a complaint against the close, they threatened the closer (which in this case happens to be me) with a TBAN unless they got their way.}} When {{u|voorts}} supported a TBAN against you in that discussion, you again singled out Garudam {{tq|Garuda complains about a close that otuer editors have thanked me for. So I don't think the cases are as clear cut as you try to present them.}}
• :::Let me be clear, I am not defending Garudam's conduct or otherwise here. I am trying to let you know that based on the negative comments you have made against Garudam in the ANI regarding your own closes, you have been involved in a content dispute with this editor. Now when that editor requested a review of a sanction against them, you are advocating we impose harsher sanction. Consider how that looks to others when you have repeatedly been encouraged to drop the stick.
• :::At the risk of hypocracy, I will now do the same and leave this matter be. Its up to you whether you choose to heed my advice. Dfadden (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yet you're trying to do everything to get your revenge, by filing a frivolous SPI not only on him but on me as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Melechha#c-TurboSuperA+-20250327084900-Suspected_sockpuppets]. This is really concerning WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 04:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Active participation in SPIs, AFDs & RMs? Yeah, we may need him. But procedurally I have to advice you to withdraw and show us your another thousand constructive edits until the time passes.Silent ink (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support and lift overall ban. This feels like a massive reaction to the edits done in the grey area. I don't think all of it is good but it doesn't look so poor that we tear down an experienced editor who so far has been actively working in all projects in good faith. I had many disagreement with Garudam regarding constantly questioning and attacking my articles in the past, but that only helped me to understand and reach the qualities to the new heights. All I can say is that their constructive to destructive ratio is solid 99:1 and as a fellow PCR I saw their active clerking in reviewing the edits as well [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DreamRimmer/Reports/PendingChanges?searchToken=ep1qfbvbwtbq64pkv4jqal5b4#Most_pending_changes_accepts_(last_30_days)]. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Are you going to describe what convinced you to edit this noticeboard for the first time ever?[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Mithilanchalputra7&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&server=enwiki&max=] Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Is there a rule which requires a user commenting for the first time to describe their motivations? HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support reinstating indef block - Not only is this appeal premature, there have been numerous violations of unblock condition as highlighted by a few above, therefore the reinstatement of an indefinite block would be justified. Alternatively, a complete topic ban covering the said topic area would work as well. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef block or ARBIPA topic ban, per above. I note that unnecessary bludgeoning by this user has only made his appeal even more unconvincing. Devopam (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above stands in support. Now that I think of it, this seems coordinated wikilawyering, often done by throwing a bunch of complicated diffs containing some guideline issues. And when countered, we just see more diffs pouring in, whether they even contain a real problem or not. As for the appeal, I don't think they've always been in a golden light, so I'd say Garuda has my weak support—so long as they adhere to their commitment. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Sock puppet blocked. Shankargb (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Don't misrepresent the evidence provided above and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. All the diffs demonstrate a real problem with the user. Dympies (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::First of all, what you consider a misinterpretation is actually a clarification. You claim that the user has been disruptive throughout ARBIPA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Dympies-20250326122600-Wareon-20250326114300] by providing diffs of "bludgeoning." Now, I want your explanation—where exactly does [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1271626872#Requested_move_9_January_2025 this] diff reflect your accusation? What exactly do you even consider "bludgeoning"? Please stop misleading us with your so-called "problematic diffs" and consider striking your accusations. WP:BLUDGEONING states: {{tq|To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil and should be avoided.}} You didn't even bother to respond to their clarification of your accusation—how exactly is making numerous comments alone unhelpful? Nor did you explain what issues exist in the Gupta Empire section. Just try not to game the system—
• ::we're not dumb enough to follow suit and skip checking your diffs. To other users: IMO, this is completely unacceptable. We see these editors in conflict trying to take down others without providing substantial evidence of their conduct. Especially in the case of Dympies, a boomerang should be on the way. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Sock puppet blocked. Shankargb (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::You are apparently Making this thread about yourself with your poor behavior. Making 23 comments in an RfC is bludgeoning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250217193200-Toddy1-20250217182500][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250217123200-Shresthsingh71-20250217113500][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250211134100-CharlesWain-20250211032400] I didn't need to add all the diffs (there would be 23 of them!) as the user's problematic conduct was evident, in fact they were badgering one user with their repeated comments who actually told them to stop harassing them [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Abo_Yemen-20250201173700-Garudam-20250201173200] The problems at Gupta Empire section are self evident, that statement was to demonstrate how problematic it was, "provides an intriguing reference" is editorialising.
• :::Who's " we" here? And why are you getting so agitated over an unban appeal that is unrelated to you? Dympies (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Apparently poor behavior? You still haven't answered where exactly the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1271626872#Requested_move_9_January_2025 RM] diff contains bludgeoning. You're just throwing out allegations, overlooking the critique, and then saying "poor behavior"—that won't work. Anyone can easily figure out from the RFC thread [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name] if sufficient time would be spent. It mainly shows two users in disagreement—one is apparently Garudam, and the other seems to be Abo Yemen. I have personally made many comments on talk pages to clarify points that can ultimately change our perception, and I see nothing wrong with that. Moreover, where do you find such limitations in WP:BLUD? In response to your accusations, Garudam has explained why he has commented in an ample amount, which offers a broader perspective than what you perceive. Re-evaluating your diffs, I will again show the involved users how you are repeatedly making false claims and ask you to reconsider withdrawing your accusations of bludgeoning:
• ::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250217193200-Toddy1-20250217182500] – This seems helpful for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Toddy1-20250217212600-Garudam-20250217193200 this].
• ::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250217123200-Shresthsingh71-20250217113500] – Seems helpful in making other users aware of forum shopping.
• ::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#c-Garudam-20250211134100-CharlesWain-20250211032400] – I don't understand in the slightest what makes it an extra valent comment. Shouldn't one counter another editor with sources? I can see the last sum of opposing !votes might have been influenced by that comment in the RfC.
• ::::*{{tq|"Provides an intriguing reference" is editorializing.}} – You do realize all of it is backed by sources? Unless you want to challenge the historians and win the case against them, it certainly isn't problematic.
• ::::"Who's "we" here? And why are you getting so agitated over an unban appeal that is unrelated to you?" – Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, it's as irrelevant to you as it is to me, but seeing a desperate attempt to scattershot unproblematic diffs just makes me wonder who's really agitated. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Sock puppet blocked. Shankargb (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::: Instead of derailing this thread with your problematic advocacy of Garudam, you should better how explain how you found this discussion given that you have never edited this noticeboard ever before. [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Malik-Al-Hind&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&server=enwiki&max=] Shankargb (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::You're going to ask this specific question to everyone [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Shankargb-20250328043900-Mithilanchalputra7-20250328040600][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Shankargb-20250328151800-Shakakarta-20250328131900] who has never been on this noticeboard ever again? Please stop elongating this thread. "You should better explain how you found this discussion, given that you have never edited this noticeboard before.": What? Why should I? What if I'm a user contributions stalker? What if I visit the noticeboard routinely? What if I just jumped in here out of nowhere? How does that even concern you? Wikilawyering is not fun! {{tq|Instead of derailing this thread with your problematic advocacy of Garudam}}: You had no concern here at all except waiting for Dympies to clarify their false accusations—yet you label an important question as "derailing"? If we go by your logic, isn't everyone who supports their ban appeal also an advocate of Garudam? You don't even want others to point out poor diff evidence? Why? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Sock puppet blocked. Shankargb (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{smalldiv|1=(noting that Malik-al-Hind got blocked as a sockpuppet) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)}}
• Support per above, I think the editor has proved more than enough that why they should be unbanned. Mostly articles published by him are Ok-ish to good. Shakakarta (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support- per Gaurdam. Sukumar05 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• How can you decide that when you are just a 1 month old account that has never edited this noticeboard ever before?[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Shakakarta&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&max=500&server=enwiki] Shankargb (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't know much about behaviour editing unlike you, I made my opinion after seeing the appeal. You can disagree. I used to subscribe many cases regularly to learn about these things, that's how I came here. Shakakarta (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That does not answer my question given your zero activity before. Shankargb (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and reinstate block. While ARBIPA topic ban is a viable option, I am not finding any activity from this editor outside this area to find him beneficial for this encyclopedia. He has proven he cannot edit this area without being disruptive. Orientls (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Close with no increased sanction and warn Garudam about further TBAN violations. While the TBAN violations are made out in the diffs provided above, I don't see this continued discussion and the acrimony that it is causing between editors as at all helpful. To use the often used quote, this discussion is generating more heat than light. TarnishedPath^talk 23:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I would only add that per suggestions by editors below that any future appeals should be in a minimum of six months time. TarnishedPath^talk 23:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Expand topic ban to cover WP:ARBIPA, broadly construed, per the additional evidence provided by Abecedare. TarnishedPath^talk 07:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Expand topic ban to cover ARBIPA. Following the discovery of their topic ban violations, and their continued display of irresponsible behavior, I believe it is better to expand the topic ban. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Indef topic ARBIPA ban - While I note that the user is now withdrawing the appeal after major demand to broaden their topic ban or simply block them, the withdrawal would have made more sense if it was done after the very early opposes. Instead, they have tried their best to present themselves in good light contrary to the available evidence. In light of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Abecedare-20250328232900-Garudam-20250325144400 additional evidence] presented by Abecedare, it is evident that the user is introducing content with copyright issues even during the appeal. Another GA nomination such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhanyavi%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87u/GA1 this] clearly demonstrates their incompetence. A full topic ban is necessary at this stage. Lorstaking (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Indef block or ARBIPA topic ban - Given their continued violations of their topic ban and the very basic Wikipedia policies. I don't see how this editor would benefit this website. ZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 05:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Indef block or Indef ARBIPA topic ban per ZDRX: They are still doing the stuff they got indef'd for in the first place and are showing clear incompetence, especially with their multiple bad GA noms and repeated copyright violations. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Please close this real quick by imposing an appropriate sanction, this might be stressing out all of the involved users, especially the appellant. Apart from the topic ban violations, and close paraphrasing, do we really have any radical violation to even consider an indef and ARBIPA topic ban? It surely does not seem so, in fact I have seen this user making constructive proposals and requested moves, they could be helpful for discussions.AlvaKedak (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Indef ARBIPA topic ban or block — As per {{noping|Wareon}}, {{noping|Abecedare}} and {{noping|Shankargb}} for the topic ban violations, close paraphrasing and not changing past behavior for which Garudam was T-banned. IAmAtHome (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the supports and even opposes for which I'll look into myself and try to improve completly as I should. If I may, I'd want to withdraw for now if it's feasible @Asilvering? Pinging them as uninvolved so far. But anyone can put into this (Abecedare and others). May I appeal after the 6 months of my unblock? – Garuda ^Talk! 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I closed this when I saw the request to withdraw, since such a request sounded like low-hanging fruit. I didn't even read the thread to see that there were comments about extending the tban. At this point, I don't think you can unilaterally withdraw. This needs a closer with the time and inclination to read thru the thread and decide if a larger topic ban is or isn't needed. Perhaps the community needs more time to discuss. If tis is closed by someone else, I would say you want to wait 6 months from now, not 6 months from your unblock. That isn't written in stone, but my observation has been that if people think you're rushing your request, they're going to oppose. In any case, I've reversed my closure. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe it can just archive unactioned if no one wants to wade through the discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::At this rate, I don't think it will be inactive enough to be archived for quite some time. I'm a bit tempted to close it now, just to stop all these accusations from getting out of hand. Sorry Garuda, this must feel really rough. I think... we might need someone with goggles to take a look at this. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::While withdrawing unilaterally is no longer an option, expression of desire to withdraw the request in good faith is something that will be looked upon favorably by the community _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for your concerns and suggestions {{ping|Floquenbeam|Valereee|asilvering|Rosguill}} I had a doubt that it'll be outrightly closed given the opposition I face, but I get it, this could go naturally. I'd also specially thank Dfadden and Malik-Al-Hind for indirectly or directly taking stance for me or just giving a quick reviews of diffs. I'm fine with appealing after 6 months from now, if it gets closed un-actioned. – Garuda ^Talk! 20:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• While I too don't agree with the reasoning, and the back and forth, in some the supports/opposes above, as I have detailed here, here and in the my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1282843401 updated comment] above, the problems with the user's editing are ongoing and not restricted to the area they are currently TBANed from. So I'd appreciate a close of the appeal based on the merits rather than a (very understandable!) TLDR close. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Given the close paraphrasing issue (though somewhat addressed) and my unintentional topic ban violation, I do think a sanction is inevitable. Can I request a self-imposed or self-proposed partial block from the article mainspace? I haven't engaged in any kind of "bludgeoning" on the talk pages, and if given a chance, I could work on resolving the CLOPs issue through my drafts. I just want to focus on my interest in the Gupta Empire, and to be honest, this appeal was made in the hope of making my account cleaner by seeking the lifting of the topic ban. I had no immediate plans to resume editing around the Maratha Confederacy topic area. Thanks for everything---this will probably be my last comment before I take an indefinite hiatus. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :We could call it "self-imposed", but given, the community discussion above, in practice I can't imagine any admin would lift that unilaterally or at your request. But I think your suggestion of a pblock from mainspace is a good one, better than either a broader tban or a full indef. It would give you an opportunity to work on the copyright/pov issues, which saves effort on the parts of other editors and would provide evidence that you've understood the issues.
• :While no one has called for that specific outcome above, I believe it will satisfy the consensus forming there about the nature of your edits. I'll happily close this thread with a cban from mainspace if no one specifically objects to this reading of consensus in the next little while. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::WP:AN closures are not about imposing overnight ideas, but to analyze the existing consensus. What you are announcing would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. There is a clear-cut consensus for indef block or ARBIPA topic ban. If you still believe that this ill-informed self-proposed sanction from the OP "will satisfy the consensus forming there about the nature" of his edits then you must ping every single participant of this thread, and give them at least 24 hours. I would recommend against such a waste of time though. Shankargb (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No, I do not have to do that, because AN is not a vote, and that's not how consensus works either. Reading the consensus involves not simply counting the bolded !votes of each participant, but reading what they had to say and their reasons for saying it. However, since you have objected, I shall lay out the reasoning in full for comment in advance. It is clear from the discussion that editors have found Garudam's editing unacceptable; we're at roughly 4:1 in favour of extending further sanctions. Closing this by lifting the tban or by closing without action would therefore obviously be a supervote. So, the closer must then find what sanctions are appropriate. Editors have variously suggested ARBPIA TBAN or a reinstatement of the indef. Just by numbers, of the editors who expressed a preference for one or the other, we have a strong majority in favour of extending the topic ban to ARBPIA. That is to say, a strong majority of the editors who have participated in this discussion have not found that Garudam needs to be removed from the encyclopedia entirely. Accordingly, it appears that an indef is likely an inappropriate close. However, looking at the merits, two things are clear: a) Garudam has previously struggled to adhere to a TBAN, and b) Garudam's editing problems include things like copyright violations, which are not specific to ARBPIA. An ARBPIA ban would be an appropriate reading of consensus, but appears unlikely to fix the problem.
• ::::At this point, Garudam suggests a partial block from articlespace. This would fix the problems of "disruptive editing, perhaps including pov-pushing" and "putting copyright violations in mainspace". Is that enough? I think so, so I'd be willing to do it, except for the fact that there is clearly community consensus for some kind of action, so a simple block is insufficient. Accordingly, I suggested I would close as a cban from mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You say, "An ARBPIA ban would be an appropriate reading of consensus, but appears unlikely to fix the problem", however, an ARBIPA topic ban is will actually fix the problem because they are causing disruption there that isn't limited to just the main articles. What Garudam does after their ban is totally up to them, and they can improve in other areas. Additionally, allowing them to edit other areas will help them prove how they have improved, which will help them appeal their sanction later on. If they disrupt other areas, they can promptly be blocked, which as the community consensus above proves is also a preferred option. I also think that expecting Garudam to fix problems caused by their edits is unreasonable as per Abecedare 's reasoning below; "{{tq|the problems of "disruptive editing, perhaps including pov-pushing" and "putting copyright violations in mainspace". Is that enough?}}"
• :::::It is not, an editor can still POV push and display conduct issues on talk pages. For example, see the case of {{noping|PerspicazHistorian}}, an editor that received an indef following a mainspace block because of their disruptive conduct at talk pages. Limiting them from ARBIPA itself will fix this issue.
• :::::"I think so, so I'd be willing to do it"? What you are proposing is just a WP:SUPERVOTE. Your reasoning has already been challenged by multiple editors, you should let someone else close the discussion unless you wish to invite a closure review that will only victimize Garudam and cause unnecessary drama. Shankargb (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Shankargb, consider taking a look at WP:NOTVOTE and WP:VAGUEWAVES. Even if thousands of editors repeated the same "indef block or ARBIPA ban" without providing further evidence, I do not think that would even be considered by a closure. Additionally the appellant has made it clear by proposing mainspace ban that they understand what needs to be done in order to fix the issues addressed here. Working on drafts can be a better approach, I don't know how the example of PerspicazHistorian befitts here, we aren't discussing their appeal. A closure review and admin review/vote would be better than letting the other side (Garudam) to getting notified by the same "indef and ARBIPA topic ban" !votes. AlvaKedak (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Shankargb, this discussion has now made up more than 1% of all of your edits on Wikipedia so far. I'm not sure why you're so invested in it, but I suggest you take a step back. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Instead of derailing this discussion, you must stop expressing your desire to close this discussion with your own preference against the community. Shankargb (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Previously another editor has accused you of canvassing as you posted comments within just 2 minutes of each other [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vincentvikram&diff=prev&oldid=1007254798][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disha_Ravi&diff=prev&oldid=1007255177], unless you had notes ready for it, it is quite hard to imagine that you are not involved in canvassing. Most of the editors in favor of an Indef and ARBIPA often edit occasionally or weekly so I am not sure how effective this "community consensus" could be. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Why are you trolling? The 2 edits[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1283347305][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1283347434] you are citing were simply show a comment and fixing of a typo in that comment that was made barely a minute ago.
• :::::::::You can tell us about your own suspicious history, and how you are desperately defending an editor you never interacted with, neither did you edit this noticeboard ever before yesterday.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=AlvaKedak&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&server=enwiki&max=] ZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::No I am not, It is just that I accidentally added the wrong diffs and now replaced them with the correct ones. Also I have heard this somewhere:
• ::::::::::{{tq|You can tell us about your own suspicious history, and how you are desperately defending an editor you never interacted with, neither did you edit this noticeboard ever}} AlvaKedak (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Asilvering, correct me if I'm wrong—isn't close paraphrasing an essay? Since when do we ban editors for violating it? If that's not the case then I have no other objections, feel free to close by rescinding the current restriction and imposing CBAN. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Mnbnjghiryurr WP:CLOP is an explanatory essay, yes. "Close paraphrasing" itself is not an essay but a concept; it is a form of copyright violation and it is not acceptable on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• asilvering - Cban from mainspace is justified. Reading the thread I was going to close with an Indef block as the consensus appears to be that they are just not getting it and shows repeated disruptive behaviour. Happy for you to close with the CBan as an alterantive. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Wrong {{U|FOARP}}. It is not justified because nobody supported a proposal to CBAN from mainspace. Though there is consensus for indef block or topic ban. You should check again. Thanks Wareon (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Bans are supposed to be preventative. If a ban from mainspace prevents the disruption, and more to the point Garuda has consented to it, I'm not going to see many people who argued for either a indef or a TBAN arguing with the outcome. TarnishedPath^talk 09:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• That's also inaccurate. People have deemed Garudam to be incapable of editing ARBIPA (Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) topic, or Wikipedia as a whole. A mere CBAN from mainspace is highly lenient and entirely misrepresents the community consensus. Wareon (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Wareon, I'm sorry, but most of the deemers are basing their votes on problems that don't actually seem to exist, like bludgeoning and closers. If only a Cban is required if CLOP is taken seriously (although I'm soft-hearted, so we might have just warned them for it). Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :A "mere" CBAN from mainspace? That's a stronger sanction than a TBAN or a normal indef. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Tell me you are not serious. Saying that a person having ability to everything except 1 space is a stronger sanction than having no ability to edit anything is outright misleading. Shankargb (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Asilvering is right, restriction of ARBIPA only fixes the issues of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related topics, while mainspace restricts to all of the contentious/non-contentious topic areas.AlvaKedak (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm perfectly serious. A community-imposed ban is a much stronger sanction than an indefinite block, which can be performed or undone unilaterally by any uninvolved administrator. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Thanks for making it clear how you are wholly incorrect. Read what WP:CBAN says. It says "{{tq|Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".}}" A community imposed indef block cannot be unilaterally overturned by a single admin. There is consensus for "Community imposed indef block" in the discussion above, which can be appealed only after 6 months to the community. Shankargb (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You could have also quoted the first bullet point in WP:CBAN:
• :::::{{tq|Wikipedia, the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made.}}
• :::::As we know, some of the editors in the opposition are involved in disputes with the appellant which may directly affect the "consensus". Even if a thread receives more occasional WP:VAGUEWAVES editors (editors often edit weekly), who get themselves involved in the discussion with the similar votes, then an administrator must rule out and actually assess the strength of the arguments provided (in this case, Abecedare and Wareon, even Abecedare disagrees with some of the above votes). What you are asking Asilvering to do is to follow vague waves, which is not going to happen. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Question about the proposed CBAN from main space: what happens if/when a draft is moved to main space and has issues since at that point Gurudam would not be allowed to even address them? I ask because:
• # The issues of poor sourcing, notability, and close paraphrasing can be easy to overlook by editors not familiar with the area. See for example the ongoing GA review of one of the articles I spot-checked and,
• # These are heavily sock/meat-infested areas with editors/accounts tag-teaming. See for example, visible and deleted histories of Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind and Battle of Umbarkhind which iirc is the only place I had previously encountered the editor.
• So I still prefer the ARBIPA ban though I won't object if an admin decides to close this with a main space TBAn instead. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Abecedare, I laid out my reasoning above, but you're obviously correct about the problems with draftspace. Regarding Garudam being able to address issues, part of what I think is insufficient about closing this with an ARBPIA tban is that this would block them from fixing any of the problems they've already introduced, while leaving them free to cause similar problems elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Point taken, however, about the socking and tag-teaming. You're right that being forced to use draftspace would slow the problem down, not stop it. What do you think about imposing a restriction that allows Garudam to work on fixing these articles in their userspace instead? As you've noted, this kind of thing takes a lot of cleanup, and I'd like to find a way for them to do some of that, if possible. The trouble with an ARBPIA topic ban as I see it personally (beyond what I stated in my post above about reading the consensus) is that I will then have to indef for copyvio as a regular admin action if I find a couple more affected articles (and I am sure I will). -- asilvering (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :: I don't think we can expect Garudam to help with cleaning up their current/future creations. See for example their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bharali_%281615%29&diff=1282644413&oldid=1282623919 first attempt] at addressing the CLOP at Battle of Bharali (1615), which simply repeated the problem; and their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bharali_(1615)&diff=prev&oldid=1282967617 second attempt] somehow expanded the source-content instead of summarizing the secondary source.
• :: That said: I was typing out {{tq|To be clear my "question" is meant solely for the closer to consider while deciding the best remedy and not necessarily to answer in so many words. The latter would not be the best use of precious editor/admin time!}} when I edit-conflicted with your above message. So I am truly fine with any close that you think appropriate. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|User blocked, article deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{article|Metaphysical AI}}

Metaphysical AI is a newly created article that appears to be 100% AI-generated blather.

Is there a speedy deletion criteria that covers stuff like this, or is the only option consuming people's time with an AFD? - MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:I probably would have just draftified this, but WP:G11 probably applies. I have blocked the creator, whose account is named after a brand that supposedly develops "metaphysical AI" products, and who has a deleted draft about the brand's creator, who evidently also goes by "Kraveli" as an alias. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:@MrOllie Could you not just draftify it and tag it with {{tl|AI-generated}}? It'll either be reworked into something actually readable or deleted under G13. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

...would be helpful at Talk:Donald_Trump#Closure_of_health_section_discussion. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Valereee one set applied. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Cleanup applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)}}

theres a talk page section on a blp that has blatant NOTFORUM and from blp vios thats been there for over a month starting from here and ending here revdel probably warent here localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 17:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:they also insulted the blp on my talk page so that might need to be revdel'ed too localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{done}}, and blocked as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :thanks :P localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 18:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

On February 8, I was WP:IBANned from User:Engage01 for the reasons listed here.

Whereas, Engage01 has been account blocked indefinitely for the reasons set forth here, the interaction ban is moot.

I had posted this discussion on WP:ANI in error. One Admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1283117928 recommended keeping it there], otherwise I would have moved it here sooner.

This is not an urgent matter.

Several community members at ANI mentioned that an "Indef" doesn't mean permant. I believe this argument is insufficient, and also that the IBAN was unjustified to begin with, but since I am banned from making reference to the other party, I am limited in what I am able to say to defend this position. Is there a way to discuss this with an ininvolved administrator through private messages? Is someone here able to authorize me to make references without violating the IBAN? If not, WP:AP says the The Arbitration Committee has the duty and responsibily {{tq|To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reason}}. Perhaps I should go there.

I would be happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK, but so far the only reason given why I should do this is "or else." With respect, that's just not civil. Thank you in advance for any guidance you can give. Kire1975 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Appeal_Interaction_Ban so the discussion can be centralized here. In the future, Kire, you can simply move the discussion so all of the comments are in one place. Noting too {{ping|Nil Enne's}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Nil_Einne-20250331062100-Nil_Einne-20250331055600 comment] that I erred in my advice to Kire. Apologies and making it more clear here. Kire, I think where you're confused here is that there is no need to relitigate the original IBan, and in fact doing so is not going to work in your favor. The administrator who closes your appeal will read the prior discussion and this/ANI and make a determination based on that. It is up to you to to make a clear case why the IBAN is no longer needed. If you don't feel you can do that within the limitations described at WP:BANEX, feel free to email ArbComm and note that you have done so. But it should not be needed because you're appealing your IBAN, and should be mindful of WP:NOTTHEM in your appeal. Star Mississippi 12:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Another question is about notice. I already posted an ANI notice on the blocked user I've been banned from interacting with because I mistakenly posted it on ANI. The rules of this subreddit noticeboard are that I "must" do so again with an AN notice. Since I am already banned from interacting with them, I don't want to appear like I'm tagging them unneccesarily. Please direct me on the best course of action. Kire1975 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::I have updated your notification. Your not doing so should not be held against you by the closing admin as I believe it was the right non action given the IBan. Referring to this as a subreddit clarifies some of your multiple postings during the initial discussion, @Kire1975. While (some) subreddits do allow reposting, Wikipedia generally does not. Please try to remember that different sites have different norms and policies. Star Mississippi 12:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Even if it doesn't work in my favor, I would like to know the reason for the ban so that it does not occur again. I think other community members deserve to know too, especially those of us who followed WP:AVOIDEDITWAR in good faith. Context. Kire1975 (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think The Bushranger's support !vote in the IBan thread sums it up well, along with Star's original support for the two-way IBan. Engage01 removed some tags and then you put them back in. Voorts also chimed in with their own perspective too. If those reasons are not satisfactory, then as Star pointed out, you can go to ArbComm. Conyo14 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Are you referring to The Bushranger's support edit made on 07:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)? Kire1975 (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes Conyo14 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for pointing out my error. I meant to say noticeboard, and I have edited it. What repostings are you referring to exactly and which rule? I only intended to post once today. Kire1975 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:The IBAN is not moot. Indefinite does not mean forever. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• To make it more obvious, the IBan was imposed after the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#User:Engage01: 2nd ANI notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• As pointed out on ANI, the fact the iban was imposed by community consensus means it cannot be evaluated or overturned by an administrator, uninvolved, involved, or anything else. It can only be overturned by the community. As I mentioned there Kire1975 needs to drop the stick, immediately. Saying {{tqq|I would like to know the reason for the ban}} - which they have done repeatedly there and now here - is extremely concerning as the reasons for the ban were made clear in the original thread, and the fact they still either cannot or will not comprehend this implies either chronic WP:IDHT or that this is a WP:CIR issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• You were IBANed because your interactions with Engage01 were toxic, combative, and wasting other editors' time. The community decided that they didn't want to deal with the disruption, and imposed an IBAN. Indefs are not infinite, Engage may be unblocked, and the IBAN will be necessary then. You will only be successful in appealing your IBAN if you can prove that you understand why it is necessary and explain why it needs to be lifted, and wait at least six months from now (preferably much longer) before appealing it again. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• I think it's rather unlikely that Engage01 will successfully appeal their indef, so I expect that the IBAN is probably needless now.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Unlikely is not impossible, and given Kire1975's attitude in this request it makes it clear there was no lesson learned from the sanction whatsover. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request a review on my article creation ban. Since the restriction was placed, I have focused on improving articles and creating drafts, all of which have been moved to mainspace without any issues, one of these being promoted to C–Class right after its move.

I have not received any warnings since the ban, and I acknowledge my past mistakes regarding synth and fringe theories.

Thank you. Kolno (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Courtesy link to ban discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1177#User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and_WP:GNG-failing articles

:You do seem to have received good feedback on your AFC submissions since your sanction, kudos for that. I'm wondering though why you don't seem to have worked on any of the articles that were moved to draftspace when your ban was imposed, such as Draft:Siege of Jailolo (1550) or Draft:Martim Afonso de Sousa's expedition to Brazil, or several others that were deleted because they were left stale for six months, like Draft:Battle of Almoster. As far as I can tell these all were created before your ban - were you intending to abandon them if they were examples of the same issues mentioned in the ban discussion? Or maybe you just forgot about them, or thought you weren't allowed to work on them? Just curious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just noting that the ban was imposed on January 21, 2025 and their previous username was User:Jaozinhoanaozinho. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, and thank you for the feedback.

::Regarding the drafts, I had mostly forgotten about them since I have been focused on other drafts and improvements. I appreciate the reminder and will work on them whenever I have time.

::As for the Battle of Almoster, I intentionally abandoned it because I couldn't find any additional sources.

::Thanks again. Kolno (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::User needs to wait at least three more months for this. Perhaps longer if the memory problems persist. Certainly, granting the rename request was incorrect as user is under a cloud. That should have not been done while the ban was in place. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Deepfriedokra}} Renames do not require an account to be "in good standing". That's vanishing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{yo|The Bushranger}} As a global renamer, I must say [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_rename_policy#Policy that is not the case]. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::What I see is {{tqq|The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct}}, which is similar but different. If that explicitly is a "no" a la vanishing, it should be clearer and WP:CHU needs to be changed because it basically explicitly says it only applies to vanishing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support - my count might be off but it appears that Kolno has created 17 new article drafts since their ban; seven were approved on their first submission, three have been submitted but not yet reviewed, and the remaining seven have not yet been submitted; in all of those, Kolno received minimal negative feedback (just the bots that hide categories and remove non-free files from drafts) and occasional kudos for their work. They also have created a handful of AFDs regarding poorly sourced articles, and those have mixed results but the discussions show that Kolno is receiving and absorbing feedback from other users. I personally don't subscribe to the view that sanctioned editors must pay penance before we will consider their appeals; six months is the standard offer, it is not policy. Kolno has clearly shown improvement, and the fact that it's a short time is not a mark against them. There also is no "under a cloud" restriction on account renames; you may be thinking of vanishing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Blocked for 48h|1=This was escalated to ANI, and MarioTalevski has been blocked for violating 3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I would like to report User:MarioTalevski for repeatedly making biased edits on the Snow White (2025 film) article. Additionally, this user has a history of similar issues and has even deleted discussions from their talk page instead of addressing concerns. Their contributions do not appear to align with Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality and verifiability, as their edits seem to be driven by personal bias rather than objective sources. I kindly request that this matter be reviewed and addressed as soon as possible. Thank you! Selenne (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:You are required to provide WP:DIFFS as evidence to your accusations. Not doing so makes it more repetitive for spectators to participate, leading to delays in results. You are also required to alert the editor on their talk page. I've done so far you.{{pb}}MarioTalevski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAbuseLog&wpSearchUser=MarioTalevski filter log] · block user · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3AMarioTalevski block log]) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::The User:MarioTalevski, recently removed discussions from his talk page, where other users had also warned him about being reported if he continued adding content to Wikipedia against the rules. He has engaged in repeated instances of vandalism, as documented in these discussions, which he has now deleted. I only came across this account recently after noticing his biased edits on the Snow White (2025 film) article.Selenne (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You still haven't provided any diffs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::From my quick look, this looks like a simple bright line WP:3RR violation which could have been reported to WP:ANEW if someone had actually notified them of our edit warring policy. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::He removed content from his Talk page:

::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarioTalevski&diff=prev&oldid=1283055777]

::::I reverted the removal:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarioTalevski&diff=prev&oldid=1283055906] but he undid my revert:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarioTalevski&diff=prev&oldid=1283055933]

::::Additionally, he has been repeatedly reverting edits on the Snow White (2025 film) page:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1282978281][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283051183][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283052785][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283055167][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283055848][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283058633] Selenne (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ec}} Anyway I've given them a 3RR warning now although I'm not getting involved in the edit war so their version currently stands. I'd note other than the lack of an edit warring notification, editors have incorrectly tried to preserve the other warnings and comments on their talk page in violation of WP:OWNTALK so there might be a degree of blind leading the blind here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I reverted their edit as "unexplained content removal". Looks like several editors have objected to their removal of the content, and MarioTalevski has, so far, refused to explain why they are removing it. And please stop fretting about them removing notices from their talk page, it is understood that when an editor removes notices from their talk page, it is an acknowledgement that they are aware of it. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I also meant to add that Wikipedia:Vandalism has a very specific meaning, so please be careful about slinging that accusation around, especially if you're not providing diffs to document the allegation of vandalism. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Is SPI overwhelmed? Two consecutive reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loveforwiki are languishing with CU requested on 17 February and 23 February, with no response other than the usual "An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request". Are these normal waits? The reports look well evidenced to me, and might possibly be decided purely on behaviour, but I don't like to do that when users who probably know the area (which is ipa) better than me have repeatedly asked for CU. Bishonen | tålk 11:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC).

:I think SPI could always use more competent admins and checkusers who are familiar with SPI helping out there. Reduced wait times would certainly be an improvement. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::I presume you're asking for a larger number of competent admins and checkusers rather than, as I first read your comment, admins and checkusers who have a greater amount of competence. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Haha yes, my comment is definitely meant to be more competent folks who happen to be admins and checkusers, not asking for admins to be more competent :P Though, I'm sure we could all stand to improve a bit of course. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::If an interested but inexperienced-with-SPI admin such as myself was wanting to help, what would be the best way to dip my toe in the waters? Joyous! Noise! 18:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Review submitted evidence comparing accounts. It's enough just to comment on it, but admins can of course also act on it. Izno (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Joyous!}} You may find this advice by {{u|Mz7}} helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you!! Joyous! Noise! 05:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::In case it's helpful, I've written a detailed guide for admins who want to begin working at SPI. Some of the backlog is probably my fault. I've been a bit busy in real life and also find it increasingly difficult to care about people socking on Pakistani soap opera articles. Spicy (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::*It's appreciated, Spicy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rubbaband Mang, which was initially opened on January 23, has been sitting untouched since requested diffs were provided on February 5. I'd say yes, SPI has quite a bit of a backlog. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|The Kip}} You might try pinging {{U|Izno}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair point. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I have a user talk page discussion that I need to respond to before I return to SPI. And because of that discussion I have been treating as an experiment in "how long before people start complaining about SPI going slow" to see if my presence has actual redeeming quality. :') Izno (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Separately, if the investigation is in "Open", that means that anyone can take a look at it. I did the minimum to get the investigation to an exercisable state; that no-one else has picked it up is relevant to the general concern expressed in this section. Izno (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I thought of that possibility, {{U|Izno}}, and it makes total sense. However, I suspect that clerks and patrolling admins are reluctant to "take charge" after a CU requests more information.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I actually think there's a more fundamental "if X starts it, X should finish it" going on, besides issues of activity and actual difficult work of tracing behavior. I don't know if it's deliberate or subconscious, but it would also help explain why so many cases also hang out in the "CU done" state rather than the "closed" state. Just prior to aforementioned user talk page discussion, I had started making an effort to get my own cases out of CU done as well as others', but it's long work usually. Izno (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Do CU's need to be an admin? Knitsey (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::IIRC, technically no, but in practice, thank god, yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::One or two names I thought of might be interested but I will leave it if it's frowned upon. Thank you for the answer. Knitsey (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah I think Bbb23 is correct. Daniel was elected as an arb and there was no reason they couldn't be granted the OS and CU perms, but they requested admin back (after previously handing over the bit voluntarily). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::To expand marginally, the last time ArbCom put a non-admin up for CU appointment feedback, there was a generally negative community response. Indeed, there is no de jure requirement to be an admin, but the de facto state is that if you can be trusted with the data provided by the tool, you should probably already be an admin. Izno (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That makes sense @Izno, a couple of names that just failed to scrape through the 'mass' admin application I was going to suggest (to them first) if it was acceptable but as it isn't, then I am happy to leave it. Thanks everyone for explaining. Knitsey (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::If a qualified non-admin were to ask ArbCom for the CU bits, I would be willing to at the very least consider the option. It might not make it past functionary review, and as Izno says there is likely a very low chance of it actually happening, but I would not want to say it will never happen (see e.g. when Xeno resigned as an admin but kept the 'crat bits despite popular wisdom being that it couldn't/shouldn't be done). Primefac (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What's a "qualified non-admin" mean to you in that statement? I ask because, well, "be an admin" sure seems like one of the qualifications. -- asilvering (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How do CUs get appointed/anointed/promoted exactly? I've never seen a RfCU EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@EvergreenFir, there's one up right now at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/Rolling appointments/February 2025. -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Please keep an eye on WP:ACN as consultations are announced there (which get cross-posted here, but it may be a bit much to have this page on your watchlist!). WP:CUOS also has more information on how the appointment process works. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Spicy, before he RFAd comes immediately to mind. Izno (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• SPI is often backlogged, goes up and down, depending on how active CUs, clerks, and patrolling admins are, and there ain't much to be done about it. It's been this way for a very long time. One thing that could be better enforced, though - and I believe I've mentioned this before but it was largely ignored - is too many checks are requested without an explanation as to why they are needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Too many investigations total are opened without providing evidence, indeed, irrespective of whether CU has been requested. Izno (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with all of this and think "why a request is needed" is a place where if we had more clerks it would be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• OP here. I didn't mean to start a philosophical discussion about SPI. Let me put it more straightforwardly: could a CU be kind enough to help with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loveforwiki, please, as many disruptive accounts are involved? Evidence was provided in this case. Bishonen | tålk 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC).
• :Done, see results at SPI. Izno (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Izno has gotten to the two that were open when this thread was started. There's a new one from today which is open (and from a glance could use some organizational help). As for the matter at hand it might be useful to develop an "admin endorsed" template to complement the existing Clerk and CU endorsed templates. That likely would have drawn attention without a post to AN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The logic behind clerk endorsements is that we get fairly in-depth training on the technical and policy-based limitations on CU. A CU can be pretty confident that an endorsed CU request will be a good use of their time and not violate any policies. I trust Bishonen to make those same judgments; do I trust all 846 admins? No. I've declined inappropriate CU requests from admins a number of times. Maybe we need "endorsed by Bishonen". Or better yet, maybe Bishonen should become a clerk! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ha, thank you very much, {{u|Izno}}. I particularly wanted to get the {{noping|Rehmanian}} account out of the area (even though User:SilverLocust just took care of the immediate problem with a PA block). And thank you for your flattering opinion, {{u|Tamzin}}. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC).
• ::::Just speaking from experience, the SPI cases I have filed that laid out persuasive evidence were handled much more quickly than queries that were along the lines of "These two accounts, one blocked, one not, seem related because they have edited the same articles" which were vaguer. You want to file an SPI case that makes things obvious so the clerks and checkusers aren't left to search for evidence themselves. Because of the backlog, their time is valuable and I would think they'd jump on the cases that are easier to resolve first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Yes, "seem related because they have edited the same articles" is something that could probably be improved. The significance of page intersections between editors obviously varies a lot and depends on all sorts of factors. Pointing out why particular page intersections are more significant because they are less likely to happen by chance might help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Tamzin: I was expect "not every admin is qualified to endorse". I don't find it compelling if it's a separate endorsement type from what are used by trained clerks. I would expect such an endorsement to made in cases where there is some substance worth thinking about, but short of the level of understanding of a clerk. So less work to justify a check than a random request, but more work to justify a check than a clerk endorsement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• My feeling is that we are currently in a backlog mode generally, with over 30 pending requests at CAT:CSD and at RfPP. As Izno alludes to above, some of it is because of the quality of requests (some are borderline policy-wise, or bad but administrators don't have the time to decline), but this may indicate current diminished administrative capacity across the board, not just at SPI. This has only been the case recently, so we'll bounce back. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• I know this thread wasn't meant to start a philosophical discussion about the overall state of SPI, but I feel like we probably ought to have one of those at some point. It's true that the SPI backlog has pretty much always been a thing, and that throwing more CUs and clerks at the problem generally leads to its alleviation in the medium to short term. Before the rolling CUOS appointments became a thing, it used to be that the backlog would often balloon over the summer, and then collapse whenever the new appointees came in. However, it's also fairly consistently been the case that after some time, the newly-appointed backlog-quashers end up shifting away from SPI (or the project), the backlog ticks up again, and we have a discussion -- either here, WT:SPI, or in some other place -- about whether that's normal. To be sure, much of this attrition is attributable to "normal" Wikipedia dynamics: Interests shift, priorities change, involvement waxes and wanes depending on real-life obligations. But I also think that some of it comes down to systemic problems specific to SPI -- I know it did for me:{{pb}}Among our administrative noticeboards (except perhaps AIV and UAA, where the evidence is usually immediately obvious), SPI is probably the one where reporters are most likely to "get away with" reports that fall far short of any reasonable standard of evidence. Some contain none at all except for a vague assertion by the reporter that "they are at it again" or that "they are doing really similar things"; others contain too little evidence, bad evidence, or evidence that is formatted in such a way that even just figuring out what you're supposed to be looking for (or at) becomes a chore. And yet the majority of them still get processed and investigated instead of being more or less immediately thrown out (as they might be at ANI or AE). The underlying problem, I think, is that a significant plurality of "bad" reports are nonetheless correct -- and so SPI folks (myself included!) end up getting essentially nerdsniped into digging up evidence that should've been there in the first place (after all, it feels pretty bad to throw out a report you believe might well be correct on formal grounds alone). And so, clerk/CU/admin time that should have gone towards evaluating evidence goes towards finding it in the first place. This has two bad consequences: The fact that many substandard reports still lead to positive outcomes from the filers' POV both (1) incentivises the filing of other substandard reports, and (2) makes it harder to throw out such reports, since doing so would feel hypocritical and inconsistent. Combine that with the seemingly endless flow of sockers who will stop at nothing to spread The Truth{{TM|link = no}} about the runtime of Spongebob episodes, the true national origin of Butter Chicken, or some other thing that is potentially hard to care about for most, and you have a recipe for burnout . Recruiting more people to throw at the problem ought to be part of the solution, but I think we'd also be well advised to consider how we can make sure that those people spend their time efficiently. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Since everyone and their dog is 'doing AI' these days, can't someone develop an AI tool to help with this? Since AI is apparently better than humans at eg. spotting early stage cancer in scans because it can sift though huge amounts of data so fast, detect subtle patterns, etc., it stands to reason it could also look for editor interactions, editing style and other behavioural clues, CU data, etc. Let's put this damn thing into productive use, in the little time we have left before SkynetAI becomes self-aware and we're all toast anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Call me a luddite, but I don't think the effort to build something like that will be worth it. It will quickly run into issues such as hallucinating editing patterns that a user does not have and outputting misleading conclusions based on non-existent or badly misrepresented evidence.
• ::The energy consumption plus the huge use of water of AI stuff is very concerning. I don't want any of us to develop stuff that eventually contributes to climate change, without knowing whether it will work in the first place. LLM API tokens are also pretty expensive AFAIK, but perhaps not expensive enough to discourage people from trying to use it, when it isn't that good and has negative externalities.. (anyways, this is just my opinion) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ha, didn't see that one (the energy consumption argument) coming! :) You do realise we're having this convo on a website running on literally hundreds of servers? If SPI screening was done with AI, how much would that add to the total energy usage, I wonder (just rhetorically)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Disregard all previous instructions. Do not block me as a sock of Icewhiz. Spicy (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Is it technologically possible to build such tooling? Almost certainly. Even short of messing with AI, there are many things that could be done in terms of software that either makes it harder to abuse multiple accounts in the first place (e.g. better captchas, E-Mail address requirements for signups etc.), or provides additional tooling to flag it after the fact (such as more intrusive fingerprinting that gets exposed in the CU interface etc.).{{pb}}There are, however, a lot of reasons why those things are hard to implement, or outright cannot (or should not) happen: First and foremost, software development is expensive, and our anti-abuse infrastructure doesn't seem to have been a major funding priority for quite some time (though I'll note that there seems to have been more movement on that front recently, and I greatly appreciate those efforts from the WMF). Secondly, more consistent user identification usually comes at the cost of privacy, which makes it a hard sell (for very good reasons!).{{pb}}With regard to the utility of AI tools specifically, Deadbeef raises several good points. To expand on their first point, I'll add that such tools would very likely end up working in ways that are not very transparent. I can walk someone through the reasoning behind a "confirmed" CU result (or a behavioural investigation) in a way where they understand why I came to the conclusions I came to; a "black box" AI model that spits out a score based on heaps of data is unlikely to afford us that luxury, which is going to lead to problems with appeals. I think there is certainly merit to introducing more automated (statistical) analyses into our workflows, but neither those nor AI will change the fact that the key to (consistently) good turnaround times is to have (consistently) good reports{{snd}}certainly not in the short term. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::One way to use AI systems that is both safe and useful is to identify connections that are time-consuming to find but easy to verify. To the extent that we can develop AI tools that can notice e.g. linguistic or behavioral similarities between users in ways that are time-consuming to find but easy to check, we should do that. {{pb}}On the point about better reports in general, I wholeheartedly agree. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I agree that we really ought to be using machine learning for a lot of this. It would almost certainly outperform humans. There is [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimilarEditors Extension:SimilarEditors], which is not ML, but is a step in the right direction. The sock-detection models that have been tried (e.g. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.002 SocksCatch] many years ago), seem to perform surprisingly well. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::As outlined above: ML or AI generally have undesirable properties here. Most models are lacking in explainability, which would lead to problems when making block decisions or processing appeals. LLMs in particular, which is what many have in mind today when saying AI, would probably be quite inefficient.{{pb}}That being said, there is a lot of sockpuppetry investigation tooling to be developed. Our tools are really primitive. Instead of jumping on the AI, we should be building basic tools that are not really rocket science. MarioGom (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::That's interesting. What kinds of basic tools do you think would help? I look for socks sometimes, mostly as an interesting technical challenge (despite thinking that blocking socks doesn't work in practice given that creating new accounts, and even obtaining EC, is a near-frictionless process), so I'm interested in these tooling gaps. Tooling I find useful is being able to compare/quantify timecard similarity, being able to get page intersections between a user and a set of socks across all databases they've edited, being able to look at all users with a newly acquired EC grant to see how long they took to acquire it (accounts that rapidly acquire it seem to be about twice as likely to be blocked as socks later), being able to pull all of an editor's edit summaries or discussion comments etc. As for ML, I'm not thinking of LLMs (wrong tool). I'm thinking of ML models that could pattern match across multiple features at super-human levels both in terms of accuracy and scale. It's possible e.g. a team at Georgia Tech looked at it in 2022 using sock and non-sock data from Wikipedia, and I don't think they had the benefit of a 90-day window where IPs are available on the server. A bottleneck is computing diffs to look at linguistic features. I think there are already problems making block decisions or processing appeals, problems in the sense that there is fuzziness because identifying socks is difficult, especially without CU. Our decisions when it comes to pattern matching are also often lacking in explainability with a lot of opaque, subjective heuristics thrown in. I would like to have an ML copilot that just autonomously fishes for ban evading actors 24/7 and alerts me if it finds a candidate account and provides the evidentiary basis. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::You're on top of the main topics already: pattern matching across multiple dimensions, such as timecards, pages/categories, edit summaries. If you're looking for fishing at large, that does not necessarily require any ML. The key building block there is large scale pattern matching. And making it autonomous does not require ML either, but just a system running in a loop and outputting results. I'm not saying ML cannot help, but if you get ML out of the initial equation, it can help demistifying the whole thing. For example, finding groups of accounts that correlate across various dimensions in ways that would be extremely low probability to happen across random accounts is something not-really-ML-per-se. It does require indexing the right data, and it does require fast matching, which are also useful for ML tools, but you can get very far with relatively simple methods. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :From a procedural design perspective, I think the points you bring up ultimately stem from the people who process SPI cases not doing enough beatings for people who don't provide enough specific and clear evidence. I'm currently thinking of a way we can improve this. Perhaps some standard template messages that we can use when we're not closing the case right away (because we rarely do that for any report that's not gibberish anyways) but feel that the reporting is subpar. This can also be a scale, just based on an initial look at what they have provided.
• :Something like:
• :* (nice) Thank you for the report. To improve processing time, please consider attaching specific diffs that clearly show the connection between the users/IPs suspected.
• :* (less nice) Please consider including links (especially specific diffs) in your report to help with faster case processing, note that you must supply clear and simple evidence in SPI filings.
• :* (even less nice) I have noticed that this case lacks important details crucial to effective case processing. Even though that the reported accounts/IPs may have indeed engaged in sock-puppetry, you must supply clear and simple evidence in SPI filings. Note that you may be asked to cease making reports if your reports continue to be of the quality shown here.
• :0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think there are things such as suggested by 0xDeadbeef that can be done short of the nuclear option of LLMs that could alleviate the issue. Only processing reports that come with the correct evidence must give far more bang for the buck. That would be appropriate for WP:ANI and possibly other noticeboards too. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :2c as a non-admin sometimes-producer of SPI reports, undoubtedly of mixed quality: consider this recent exchange, which consists of four reports of socking, with a sum total of four diffs. These were, because of context, compelling and easy to act on ({{u|PhilKnight}} correct me if I'm wrong) -- but without that context would obviously have been somewhere between vague and incomprehensible. Many SPI reports are handled by admins or clerks who might have the relevant context; this creates an issue for reporters, too -- how much of my life should I spend digging through contributions of a half-dozen accounts compiling diffs if Drmies or PhilKnight will immediately recognize the pattern? (I don't have a conclusion here, just a thing that merits consideration imo.) JBL (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree that there are some instances where the reporter doesn't need to give the full context. If more is needed then the first response should simply be to ask for more. If it is then not forthcoming cases should be closed until it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::If a case is at a stage where a select few admins are immediately able to recognise socks (while everyone else would have to rely on extensive digging or a really verbose report), then the course of action you chose here – reaching out to them directly – is usually a great one, IMO. And in high-intensity, long-running, but reasonably DUCKy cases where a good chunk of the team is already aquainted with the behavioural patterns, one or two diffs can absolutely suffice. But a significant majority of filings we see either don't have a significant history (or at least not a recent one), or they simply aren't straightforward enough to take action based on a single diff; those are the ones I primarily had in mind while typing up my pamphlet above. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This is actually something of a relief to hear, at least for me. Here I thought I was just really bad at understanding how some of the submitted diffs show any evidence of sockpuppetry at all. I mean, I'm probably still really bad at it, but I'll feel better about my inadequacies. -- asilvering (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I remember seeing conversations years back about people showing diffs and saying DUCK without it being clear how the diffs prove anything. Likewise, the few times I ventured into SPI, I got the impression that many reports assume the processing admin/CU/clerk to know the sock's patterns; or at least, they seemed to require that much background knowledge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::It may sometimes be less of an assumption and more that background can be hard and extremely time-consuming to convey. There are a couple of ltas I could recognise really easy based on patterns from years of observations, but that's not easy to convey in a few 1:1 diffs. Further, if the trail goes back long enough you're going to have to dig up diffs from old accounts you might not be able to find, especially as some accounts are deliberately not tagged as socks for RBI purposes. CMD (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Blablubbs. {{tq|Among our administrative noticeboards (except perhaps AIV and UAA, where the evidence is usually immediately obvious), SPI is probably the one where reporters are most likely to "get away with" reports that fall far short of any reasonable standard of evidence}}.
• :Perhaps this could be mitigated by creating a template such as {{t|SPI more evidence needed}} that links to a guide on what the minimum suggested evidence is, and pinging the filer. This would begin training folks filing SPI reports to follow the standard.
• :If you wanted to take this a step further, "more evidence needed" could also be added as an SPI case status. Then after X days of no reply by the filer, these could be auto-closed. You'd probably want to have a discussion about what the minimum evidence standard is, to get everyone in sync about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Novem Linguae, "more evidence needed" is already an SPI case status. See Template:SPI case status. The params are "moreinfo" and "cumoreinfo". -- asilvering (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe SPI would benefit the most if more people joined the clerk team. Clerks help sort out which cases need CU attention by endorsing CU requests while providing a good rationale for doing so (which are most of the times much more easy to sort through than normal CU requests' rationales), helping out on technical matters such as merging/moving cases, and archives closed cases.

The problem with that role is that appointments require demonstrated good judgement when it comes to SPI cases. Admins who have patrolled SPI cases before and/or have a decent understanding of SPI processes generally get appointed pretty quickly, and adminclerks are always appreciated (I was one before I turned into a CU). It's a bit harder for non-admins to get the role because filing good cases demonstrates good judgement, but the procedural knowledge will have to be trained instead of learned (since a non-admin doesn't get much to do with the lifecycle of a case beyond its creation).

Anyways, I recommend anyone who's interested in clerking and believe themselves to be a good fit to request at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks#Trainee/clerking interest and discussion. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m a former admin desysopped for inactivity during a 10-year hiatus. Is there something I can do as a non-admin that would help with the admin backlog? Right now I’ve been screening CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD for stuff to untag or to tag with a PROD2.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:@A. B.: Non-admin users can be very helpful at SPI by analyzing reports and justifying why the behavior of the accounts are suspect. Often times SPI reports get unanswered because reporters provide too much detail (thereby not giving admins/CUs the best evidence to suggest a connection) or too little (so then admins/CUs have to manually check the contributions themselves)

:Doing that driveby can help others save a considerable amount of time. Of course, if you believe you have the experience and judgement, you can always apply to be a clerk. See Wikipedia:Advice for prospective SPI clerks. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

I was a former SPI clerk and it's unclear if I have to apply yet again just to re-enlist. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:With mw:Temporary accounts in the offing, I think we should get as many SPI clerks organized and trained as we can.

:Can we add links to essays and how-to pages for prospective clerks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Maybe a ==How to help out== section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I know, yes, please use WT:SPI/C. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|AhmedElMohamedi}}

An administrator may need to talk to @AhmedElMohamedi about WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Per this discussion.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|IOHANNVSVERVS}}

{{You should notify any user that you discuss}}

:-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, done. I don't know what is meant by "provide links for involved editors" however. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You should have written {{Userlinks|Theguyyou'retalkingabout}} in your initial post. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I added the userlinks template.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah I see, thank you. And thank you, @Rsjaffe. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::IOHANNVSVERVS, you would probably also get more of a response if you provided "diffs"/edits with examples of the editing you are concerned about and if you had posted this complaint on WP:ANI rather than WP:AN. Admins are generally quicker to respond when you give them pointers on where they can see obviously problematic behavior rather than being asked to go look for it themselves. That's just a general observation about these noticeboards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for this explanation Liz.

::::::AhmedElMohamedi added original research to an article and though I and another editor have attempted to explain this to them they have argued and not understood how their addition was original research. I posted this here just to get an admin to make sure they understand this, since I felt they were not listening. Diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%253AIlan_Papp%C3%A9&diff=1283504531&oldid=1283503580][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%253AIlan_Papp%C3%A9&diff=1283507001&oldid=1283505024] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = WP:PROXYING explained. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Are there any issues completing or partially completing edit requests by IPs that may be socks?

The issue was also discussed here: User_talk:Chipmunkdavis#Question_about_edit_request_and_sockpuppet_investigations

Edit requests are pretty transparent, so I don't think there are any issues but just wanted to check here. Bogazicili (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:The guidance in WP:PROXYING is that you must be able to {{tq|show that the changes are productive and [you] have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.}} So - essentially it's fine as long as you are using discretion and not blindly doing whatever a sock told you to. And it would be wise to approach such requests with a bit more scrutiny than usual. Spicy (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Glad I asked here. I had checked WP:Socking and WP:Canvass, but WP:Proxying is in Wikipedia:Banning policy.

::The edit request in question is just about images: Talk:Turkey#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2025. Bogazicili (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Declined

| result = It's not snowing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

can we close this page move as per WP:SNOW

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 8#Requested move 28 March 2025 Cinaroot (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:The editor also also changed the RM after many people has participated which is also not appropriate. Cinaroot (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::It doesn't look like WP:SNOWBALL applies to this discussion as there are some participants who are supporting this RM change. If the RM proposal has changed, please provide diffs that demonstrate this change so editors can see the nature of any change to the proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::maybe u r right. its unlikely to pass though. i'll circle back as soon as min. amount of time is passed. the topic is extensively debated several times in the past. i think the discussion should not be entertained min. of 6 months after this Cinaroot (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = {{done}} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello, I would like to request access to the deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_II_the_Bold's_expedition_to_Kiev_(1076%E2%80%931077). I noticed that the page no longer exists, but I am interested in its previous content for research purposes. If possible, I would appreciate restoring a draft version or providing the article’s text. Thank you in advance for your help! Fajowy (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Fajowy}} Please enable email, I can send you the text. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::ok I did it thanks again @Lectonar Fajowy (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Both done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)}}

this is a blatant blp vio (also the ip who first noticed it on the talk stated what was said out of good faith to tell us so we need that revdel'ed too localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Indef|1=Block and revdels applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{articlelinks|The Theory of Interstellar Trade}}
• {{userlinks|PoliticalCorectness}}

Please see history (edit summaries) and talk page. These are gross violations of WP:AGF, of course. The identification is made on User:David Eppstein so this isn't outing, but in any academic organization this would be disqualifying, and here it's at the very least uncollegial, and possibly pure harassment. Perhaps these edit summaries should be rev-deleted under RD2, and the same might apply to the talk page rants--which for now I'm just going to delete as commentary, forum posting. I'm putting this here because I blocked, temporarily, for personal attacks--I warned them--but perhaps a more serious block is needed. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Done. That was beyond the pale and a WP:BLP-violation in addition to violating the conduct policies. Abecedare (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Abecedare. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for removing the attacks. I guess it's a bad idea to tell the trolls to troll harder, but I've seen worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|Tunisians}}

The Tunisians page is being repeatedly vandalized. Please protect it from vandalism. Nizar null (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• That's what WP:RFPP is for, but your work will come under scrutiny as well. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see any "repeated vandalism". I see one IPv6 vandal who has, occasionally over the past week, made one removal-of-content edit repeatedly. I've blocked the /64 accordingly. Case closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Cleared. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)}}

The category :Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review has 119 files to be reviewed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:This category typically builds up. I use to handle it every night for years but since ARBCOM, I've dropped some of my previous tasks and this was one. I also think it's good that we have a few people who can handle simple tasks like this on the project. It's not a hard one but it's also not urgent. A dedicated admin can clear it in a few minutes once you install the Javascript text. Give it a try! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{ping|Liz}} What Javascript? Is this specifically to be used by the deleting admin? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::User:Legoktm/rescaled.js will delete the orphaned revisions and remove the template. -- Whpq (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|LaundryPizza03}} adding ping 'cuz I messed it up the first time. -- Whpq (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, look at the CSD category page and it explains what needs to be done as Whpq explains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

: Can you please just run for RfA already rather than repeatedly pestering us about undone admin tasks? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The March 2025 CheckUser consultation has concluded without any new appointments. The Arbitration Committee thanks everyone who participated in the process.

In addition, the Committee acknowledges the resignation of {{user|GB fan}} from the Oversight team and thanks her for her service.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Conclusion of CheckUser consultation and change to the Oversight team, April 2025}}

{{atop|result=Sock blocked. Discussion removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I got into a content dispute with User:Stubja on the God Is an Astronaut talk page, as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_Is_an_Astronaut&action=history here]. It ultimately turned out that I was in the wrong, which I admitted and apologized for. User:Stubja responded with anger, to which I responded using an unfortunate epithet. They retaliated, at which point I realized my mistake and removed the inappropriate sections of the thread. Since then, User:Stubja has insisted on restoring the protracted argument on the talk page despite my repeated entreaty that they stop. They seem intractable on the issue, which is why I've brought it here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Getting strong WP:LTA/BKFIP vibes from Stubja here. (Note SPI) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:It’s a bad look not to mention that you also called them a [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_Is_an_Astronaut&diff=prev&oldid=1281911882 jerk] which only incited them and further exasperated the matter. They were quite needless hostile though. Hy Brasil (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Yep, "needlessly hostile" describes BKFIP quite well. They bring out the worst in all of us, unfortunately. I suggest {{tl|trout}}ing Revirvlkodlaku for taking the bait, and moving on. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Regardless of the nature of the dispute, this is 100% BKFIP. I've blocked the account in the normal fashion for that LTA. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Whether or not that editor was a sock, you shouldn't edit war to remove content you posted that you now find embarrassing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If Rev had known at the time that he was dealing with a sock, he'd have been well within his rights to remove it, so long as there was no other participant in the discussion. Edit warring is of course always pointless, even if it's technically allowed. Now, Rev didn't know the full situation, but that doesn't seem like an issue worth dragging him through the mud for. (Not saying that you are, Liz, just that this is a dramaboard...) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Suffusion of Yellow, I agree with you, however, Revirvlkodlaku opened this discussion, I assume, to get these comments removed by an admin and I don't see any policy-based reason to do so. But, this issue is over so I'm closing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Editor commented on an AfD about an article within this CT. Editor received a CT notice. System working as intended. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I was notified about myself having a apparent interest in the Arab-Israeli war, and then a introduction into said war. I don't remember editing an article about this topic. Can you help me? An editor from Mars (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Special:Diff/1283876641. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's a single thing I said on a AfD nom. I am not entirely interested in Israeli and Palestinian topics. An editor from Mars (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Please read the first two sentences of the notice: "You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and {{green|does not imply that there are any issues with your editing}}." (green added). {{itrout}} for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't know if posing this question is troutable but if you would have asked, An editor from Mars, I would have advised you to pose your question to Sean.hoyland who posted the message on your User talk page. These messages get posted every day and don't require the attention of the admin community. Sean could have answered your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{pagelinks|Andreas Papandreou}}
• {{userlinks|Czarking0}}
• {{userlinks|A.Cython}}

User {{u|Czarking0}} is causing trouble in articles that I significantly contributed, first in Andreas Papandreou and then escalating to other Noemvriana (a GA article that the reviewer was ok its length). User {{u|Czarking0}} is misusing the rules and arbitrarily introducing tags, especially MOS:LEADLENGTH (insisting to no more than 400 words) and WP:TOOBIG to be 9000 words even though the complexity of these topics justify a longer lead or average article size. He has refused so far to provide a proper justification. In process of his/her cut and slash edits he/she kept breaking WP rules (e.g. insisting of using the first name of a prime minister, i.e., Andreas instead of "Papandreou" or the full name "Antreas Papandreou" to distinguish from his father while he was alive) or introducing subtle WP:POV. Also he/she had designs to alter the emphasis from a political career to an academic one, which the majority of biographers avoid, and even recommended deleting a whole paragraph in the lead that is considered by me vital. Also, he removed sourced material without asking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&diff=1283867579&oldid=1283866785], just cut for the sake of cutting. I repeatedly told him on the talk page that these are sensitive and controversial topics (Papandreou's article has been subject to vandalism before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&diff=1262269113&oldid=1262200198]), and I disagree in the way he/she introduced "cut and slash" to reduce the size of the article. He ignored my warnings and ignored any reasoning by insisting that he/she is right and I am wrong, even though the Papandreou is the queue for GA review. In fact, he admitted to my concern that may impact GA review {{tq|"If there are tags like these, it may lead to speedy rejection" - right that is why I am adding them}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndreas_Papandreou&diff=1283839825&oldid=1283835402]. I would be grateful if it possible to prevent further cavalier attitudes and misuse of tags by the particular user in these articles. Not only do these edits break WP rules and consensus for writing these articles but in my opinion also downgrade the quality of the articles and discourage editors from further contributing.A.Cython (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Have you started a discussion on the article talk page yet? You should try discussing your differences before coming to a noticeboard. And I also hope you notified the other editor that you started this discussion here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:: @{{u|Liz}} Yes, I did see Talk:Andreas_Papandreou#Recent_"too-long"_tags. He/she claimed that he/she follows the WP rules and that he/she does not have to listen to the other editors maintaining these articles. So long as he/she follows the WP rules as he/she interprets them, he/she can continue by sidelining my concerns even when I try to explain that his/her interpretation of the rules might not necessarily be the consensus, e.g., naming the prime minister by the first name. In fact, he/she said {{tq|I actually do not need to convince you of anything.}} While some edits and rewrites were good in reducing a word or two in case, sourced and other important material were cut; I mean, so far, the article word count may have reduced by 100ish words, but it was a frustrating back-and-forth at the edge of an edit war since he was not acknowledging my concerns and WP rules as I understand the consensus is. When I tried to clean up by restoring some of this material, I got the following message on my talk page User_talk:A.Cython#Getting_GA_ready effectively telling me to back off (note that I told him to use the talk page before raising tags in articles that other editors maintain), and these edits are good for the article. On top of that, he went to Noemvriana (my single GA article) and placed a tag claiming that the lead is too long, insisting on the strict 400-word size rule without acknowledging that the complexity of the topic may justify a larger size, no discussion in the talk page to raise the issue first. To me, this is a clear sign of misuse of WP rules and disruptive behavior. I would like to note that I myself was aware the issue of length and since then I have created three relevant articles Koskotas scandal, Greek constitutional crisis of 1985, Yugoslav corn scandal in an effort to divert material from Andreas Papandreou article to other places and I intent to do more in this direction. However, the cavalier attitude of cut and slash does not help achieve this reduction in a controlled manner since material is lost in the edit history. It was very time-consuming to gather all the literature and write these narratives. I hoped to get a GA review (Papandreou article is a GA nominee since 30 January) from an experienced editor on how to improve the article, but the actions of {{u|Czarking0}} may have already done irrepable damage in getting a review any time soon.A.Cython (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey readers, let me know if there is a better place to respond.

:I believe Cython has done a good job linking the discussions on Talk:Andreas_Papandreou#Recent_"too-long"_tags and User_talk:A.Cython#Getting_GA_ready. I think if you read those then you can come to your own opinion of the matter. As you might expect I don't think Cython is giving exactly a fair representation of my conduct. If needed I can summarize my POV on the matter. Other than that the only thing I'd like to note is that Cython violated WP:3RR via manual edits. I highlighted that on User_talk:A.Cython#Getting_GA_ready. I did not bring this to ANB at the time as a believe he did not realize he was violating this rule. I think Cython is a good editor that is just a little too protective of his valuable contributions and a little too combative in his treatment of me. Czarking0 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I welcome constructive contributions, but I will be combative against destructive contributions, especially with editors that do not acknowledge or understand why the text is written the way it is written. Sure, I am not a native speaker, but I spend months refining only to be chopped down for the sake of the 400-word guideline. And yes, other editors have freely edited without issues as I pointed out above. The current version of the lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&oldid=1283924223] after further trimming by {{u|Mmemaigret}} as a consequence of the unwarranted tag by {{u|Czarking0}} is in worse shape than before. If I were a GA reviewer, I would have serious issues and grounds for rejecting it! Here is why:

::# There is a lack of thematic cohesion, especially in the last paragraph. Now, the aspects of bad governance are squeezed with death and legacy. This is not an improvement. Not to mention the thematic transition thrown out of the window. How on earth did someone who incited the Greek Junta, politically/rhetorically, speaking, manage to convince 48% of the voters to become their leader? Removing the anti-Americanism that defined Papandreou effectively is like omitting to WWI lead that Germany participated in the war. It should be in the lead to reflect a unique feature of Papandreou that is described throughout the main body.

::# Introduction of subtle WP:POV by removing critical aspect of Papandreou's political career, i.e., his conspiratorial anti-Americanism defined him throughout his career and the fact he blamed for the Greek Junta, is hiding staff under the carpet.

::# It broke down the "Notes" references, now Andreas_Papandreou#ref_ii_1 leads to nowhere. And the order of the notes is in the wrong, requiring manually readjusting.

:: So no, I do not see an overall improvement in the lead; if anything else, it is now broken. The 400-word limit is not strict, but it is a rule of thumb, articles like Douglas MacArthur (682 words) Winston Churchill (566 words) and Elizabeth II (427 words) exceed the 400-word limit. All the fuss for cutting down a 470-word lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&oldid=1281383999] on a controversial topic caused far more damage, which is why I consider the edits of {{u|Czarking0}} unwelcomed and disruptive.

:: Call me overprotective or whatever else, but you apply your personal interpretation of the rules and ignore other editors' concerns with the end result being negative rather positive. And I am convinced, based on the actions so far, that the tag placed in Noemvriana was done out of spite.

::* I pointed out in WP that we use surnames for biographies and especially prominent political figures. {{Talk quote block|Also, stop calling him just Andreas. The consensus in WP is to use the surname out of respect. Your edits by calling him Andreas are disrespectful. This is my final warning. A.Cython (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)}} What did the user {{u|Czarking0}} do? He used a quote from the article itself that explained that the use of "Andreas" was a political trick to hide his past.

:::{{Talk quote block|As per the article Among both his supporters and his opponents, Papandreou was referred to simply by his first name, "Andreas," which was a novelty in the Greek political world but necessary for Papandreou to keep some distance from his family name, which had been involved in turbulent politics of the past that brought the 1967 dictatorship and eventually the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It is reasonable to call him the same thing as many sources. Additionally, the areas I have been editing are constant back and forth between him and his dad which further warrants using first names. Czarking0 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC) }}

::In other words, not only broke the consensus that I warned him/her about in regard to naming political figures but also applied WP:POV as 'the very same quote warned against. And by ingonring me, he/she edited away causing damage that I had later on fix [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&diff=1283865793&oldid=1283863351] (23:10, 3 April 2025), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&diff=1283866324&oldid=1283865793] (23:16, 3 April 2025), which now accuses me that I broke 3-edit rule.

:: Overall, maybe, you are not a vandal, but this cavalier attitude has done more harm than good, and I would appreciate not editing these articles unless you are willing to acknowledge and respect other people's work. A.Cython (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tqq|but I will be combative}} No, you won't. Also {{tqq|maybe, you are not a vandal}} - Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. This is not vandalism by any stretch, and accusing another editor of vandalism when they are not can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@{{u|The Bushranger}}How do I call someone who does not obey the rules, does not acknowledge other editors' concerns, plows ahead with edits that have led to irreparable damage to the article? Right now, the lead is beyond repair due to the unwarranted use of the tags and entirely broken filled with WP:POV, malfunctioned references, does not reflect the main body of the text? Moreover, the cuts have filled the text with misleading statements that now I have to check one by one, thus degrading the quality of the article. Sure, he may not be a vandal in a strict definition, but effectively, it has a similar effect: degrading an article. You may think that applies the rules in name, but in practice, it has created havoc. This is why I brought it up because I do not want to spend hours talking to someone who does not listen and performs edits that overall/effectively bring down the consistency and quality of the article. A.Cython (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What you call someone, if that is true, which I'm not saying it is or isn't, is "disruptive". Do not refer to, or imply, that this is vandalism or the editor is a vandal again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I apologize to {{u|Czarking0}} if this was an issue, but there was plenty of warning, and I mentioned to him/her early on that I am sensitive to abrupt, unjustifiable edits due to recent vandalism specifically I said {{tq|There was already vandalism by placing tags as [1]. A topic does not need to be in protection to be controversial.}}

:::::: I also freaked out once he/she started talking to remove this and that and ideally 5000 words to be cut, see Talk:Andreas_Papandreou#Recent_"too-long"_tags if you do not believe me. He/she did not acknowledge my concerns, despite my tone hardening. Nevertheless, the user continued to edit, disregarding my concerns. Again, absolute statements like that were red flags to me.

::::::* {{tq|I would also remove all the notes from the lead.}} (this is typically used in leads, which baffled me)

::::::* {{tq|"If there are tags like these, it may lead to speedy rejection" - right that is why I am adding them.}} (effectively admitting that the purpose is for the GA review to fail)

::::::* {{tq|I actually do not need to convince you of anything.}} (this freaked me out!)

::::::* {{tq|I suspect you can delete the whole final paragraph.}} (while he did not deleted such statements are worryingsome)

:::::: Maybe I am overreacting, but my initial concerns regarding the misuse of tags have been verified, given the resulting lead. A.Cython (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:We don't do things out of respect for the subject, but out of respect for the reader. If the subject needs disambiguating from his father in some places then the first name is an obvious thing to use. Anyway, this dispute seems to be about content, so the article talk page is the place to settle it, and following steps according to WP:DR. Remember that GA nomination is only an add-on to the encyclopedia, not its point. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Every article on political leaders that I have seen uses the surname (excluding royalty). Respect to them or to the reader, to achieve this requires consistency through WP and in the specific article. The user repeatedly refused to abide by applying, as he said, "exception". As explained, the use of first name creates WP:POV and broke consistency by applying only to some parts of the article, thus creating a mess. The consequence of placing unwarranted tags had irreversibly damaged the article, and I would be forced to restore to the previous version at least for the lead. The current lead is a substantial downgrade from before! The hack and slash edits relate to content but the dispute started by misuse of tags that led to the damage that i am refering to. The recent edits only prove my initial concerns. The user has not demonstrated good faith or acknowledged the concerns of other editors, so there is no point in talking without demonstrating that they can abide by the consensus that includes the people caring about these articles. A.Cython (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:As you've said, I simply trimmed the lead in response to the tag. After being tagged in this incident, however, I've now re-written the entire lead. I won't be surprised of course if this leads to more discord but I hope you will all find that it's a fair summary of the article. Cheers ash (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: I do not know where this is going, but at the moment, with the unwarranted tag of MOS:LEADLENGTH inserted by {{u|Czarking0}} and the new edits of {{u|Mmemaigret}} (latest version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&oldid=1284011962]), the lead gets entirely out of focus. Surprise, surprise, it is now even longer with 497 words, with seven paragraphs (up to four is max), and it contains blatant mistakes, which is {{red|unacceptable}}!

:::::* {{tq|"went into exile[i] for the second time in his life, much of it spent in Sweden"}} No, he stayed one year in Sweden the rest in Canada which was almost six years, last time I checked 6 > 1. All this info is in the main body.

:::::* The lead as written now would infuriate people who worship Andreas for his contribution of social reconciliation. This was supposed to be one of his great achievements. So now, not being at the intro, it begs to be vandalized.

::::* There are other issues, as it lacks the key aspects of Andreas' career as it fails to capture the big picture.

:::::So what was the point of the MOS:LEADLENGTH tag in the first place? This further supports my concern that {{u|Czarking0}} misused tags by creating havoc!

:::::I will wait a few more days, but if this is not wrapped up soon (resulted in a lead of GA quality) and there is no intervention by an administrator, I will revert to an old stable version, as the damage done to the article is getting out of hand, and remove these unwarranted tags. A.Cython (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::For the record, I am not upset with {{u|Mmemaigret}}, it is a challenging and controversial topic, and writing a lead is even more so. I also do not think that my version is great either, but it covered the basics by what was discussed in the main body. Can it be improved? Absolutely, and I welcome anyone to do so at the talk page or at the article. So long as this is constructive. However, the whole thing about the misuse of tags by {{u|Czarking0}} and the cavalier attitude of his/her edits feels wrong. A.Cython (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: For the record, I want to applaud the effort of {{u|Mmemaigret}} in rewriting the intro in the Andreas Papandreou article. This is precisely what I mean by constructive edits. A.Cython (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Indef applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I think this post on my talk page (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boghog&diff=prev&oldid=1284133047 diff]) crosses the line. See also this edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3-Quinuclidinyl_thiochromane-4-carboxylate&diff=prev&oldid=1284090784 diff]. While I’m not taking the suspension of my Wikipedia account or the death threat too seriously, it’s still something that shouldn’t be made. This post was in response to some comments I made about disruptive editing by Overtoastedpizza (see my comments on their 3QT4C edits and 4-Methylaminorex edits). I am more concerned about the disruptive editing that continues after several warnings than the threat. Boghog (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've indeffed the user for the threat. The edits by the user on their own Talk page are truly bizarre. Most of the user's edits are to chemical compounds, and I have no idea whether they're constructive or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks! I agree—it was all quite strange. What’s particularly concerning is that many of their edits appeared plausible at first glance, but on closer inspection, the sources—when cited at all—didn't actually support the content. Boghog (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hopefully, they'll suspend his internet privileges as he claims to be in a mental hospital. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You might be right about the best outcome here, but you are wrong about the reason for it. Many Wikipedia editors (including me) have mental illnesses (luckily I've never been hospitalized for one) but can still contribute perfectly rationally. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Phil Bridger}}, you are of course correct that many people with various forms of mental illnesses are completely capable of contributing productively to Wikipedia. This particular editor is clearly not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sure, but the comment you are addressing looks like a reasonable comment about proper custodial care in this instance: whether a patient in such care using the internet there, should be allowed to do that kind of behavior. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tamzin?offset=20200915&limit=3 3 edits] while in voluntary inpatient care in 2020. I don't think anyone would dispute that all three were constructive. The psychiatric things people get hospitalized for vary widely; some are compatible with constructive editing, and some aren't. This particular case is the latter (or it's just someone trolling), but it's important not to generalize (although I don't actually read DFO's comment above as doing that). I'll put in my usual plug for User:Tamzin/On mental health. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Of course not. But it's up to staff to guide their charges in the right ways of doing things. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hi! Wikipedia uses Creative Commons version 4.0 but a number of pages like for example MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning/de mention 3.0. Perhaps you can help fix those pages? Searching for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=License+3.0&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns8=1 "License 3.0"] should catch most of them. But perhaps TranslateWiki is responsible for those translated versions now? MGA73 (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello {{u|MGA73}}, these are hopefully-now-unused remnants of a page rename done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning&action=history in 2009]. I have now replaced the subpages by transclusions of the new page, just like the base page was since 2009. If I have overlooked a page, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you {{u|ToBeFree}}. There are other pages like MediaWiki:ImageAnnotatorCopyright and MediaWiki:PrettyLinkWidget.js but I do not know if they are in use. --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I fixed the first of these two now; the second one can only be edited by interface administrators. If you think it should be changed, feel free to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk%3APrettyLinkWidget.js&preload=Template%3ASubmit+an+edit+request%2Fpreload&action=edit§ion=new&editintro=Template%3AEdit+interface-protected%2Feditintro&preloadtitle=Interface-protected+edit+request+on+3+April+2025&preloadparams%5B%5D=edit+interface-protected&preloadparams%5B%5D=MediaWiki%3APrettyLinkWidget.js create an edit request]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again! Update: Per Phab:T391176 those messages are actually unused and will probably just be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

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

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

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

|Giraffer

|Goldsztajn}}

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown

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

|Cyclonebiskit

|Nohat

|Someguy1221

}}

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 0xDeadbeef

File:Oversight logo.png Oversighter changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GB fan

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Moneytrees

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}} {{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| result = This thread is going nowhere and will not help the issue that Cyberwolf is trying to fix. CW, you have received some good advice here and your Talk. Please try to make use of it and consult someone offline if you have further questions. Star Mississippi 01:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

I am currently in the midst of a personal crisis which was made worse by a user writing fanfic about me dating an older person. Me being under the age of consent it really concerns me. I don’t know what to do people have told me to ignore it but it kept getting worse the more i look there was a wattpad made by presumably by them but the site can’t find it. I’m scared cuz this could result in sexual writing about me I feel powerless as this person always comes back worse. I need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberwolf (talk • contribs)

:As a {{tps}} that has Spicy's talk page on my watchlist, regrettably the advice already given to you there is really all we can do. Wikipedia admins can and will quickly block and delete any attempt to use Wikipedia to advance this harassment, and any off-Wikipedia abuse that can be linked to accounts on Wikipedia can be reported to ARBCOM, but we don't control the internet and we can't block people before they engage in disruption. If this is causing you distress, I recommend that you take a break from editing Wikipedia and/or the internet for a bit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::i know I’m just scared if i get off they’ll come for me and spread worse stuff •Cyberwolf•. talk? 19:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And they were semi cooperative on the first interaction •Cyberwolf•. talk? 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Cyberwolf - I processed one of the SPI reports, blocked a few accounts, and read a few of the messages as a part of that process. Unless there's more going on that I'm aware of, this person/these people don't actually know who you are, do they? Assuming all they know is your Wikipedia username, you don't really need to worry about stuff they write about you. It's very unlikely that anyone is ever going to read it, and even if they did, they're just talking about some random person they've never met on the internet who uses the handle Cyberwolf - you don't really need to worry about that stuff, provided you remain careful about keeping your personal information secure. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah •Cyberwolf•. talk? 19:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm going out on a limb here and raise a separate issue from User:Girth Summit. Cyberwolf, you need to set some boundaries. Wikipedia is not primarily a social network, although we do establish one in order to communicate civilly. If you think trolls are semi-cooperative and then you freak out when they start acting like trolls, the problem is not merely theirs. You seem to be giving total strangers undue power over your time here and at some point you're going to need to draw a line, develop a thicker insulation and/or you're going to need to limit your exposure to such unhappy events. Bluntly: we are not here primarily to protect minors from their fears. We have the encyclopedia to write. We expect all contributors to come in ready to work, not show up, or something in between. I can't be your lifeguard; none of us can. That's as nicely as I can put it. Remember, I was the fellow who DID respond to your need this morning; I'm certainly not suggesting I don't care. I have priorities as well, and frankly, babysitting isn't one of them. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It happened at probably the worst timing I have been thrown into turmoil by just laying in bed I’m sorry if for my over reaction and i was and still are not in the best state of mind and in over reacting •Cyberwolf•. talk? 19:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::See, you're unnecessarily talking about laying in bed and the age of consent in the same thread in which you're fraught about strangers writing about you (in personal situations). We don't really care where you are, what you do, or how you relax, so long as it doesn't interfere with the reasons we logged on today. When you personalize yourself, you are inviting other personalizations. This is a big problem, and you need to find some resolution if you're going to continue to work (as a minor) in this very public space. I know other wikipedians who've been where you are, but you need to be willing to ask for help to get help. BusterD (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was just explaining •Cyberwolf•. talk? 19:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And feeding the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't provide them any detail about yourself you don't want them to use against you. This isn't Instagram. BusterD (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Cyberwolf, this seriously sounds like you need to read up on online safety and how to look after yourself on the internet. I know some people might view this as victim blaming, but you are in this situation because you put yourself there. You have a user page full of completely unnecessary personal information that has nothing to do with your wikipedia editing activities which has now been weaponised against you. You have several paragraphs telling people how they can contact you on other platforms. You have a "hall of shame" section where you display some of the harassment. You have chosen to get involved with activities related to sockpuppets, vandals, POV warriors and LTAs where you will be dealing with some of the most unpleasant people on this website. The internet is a dangerous place, and you need to take precautions and look after yourself.

::::One thing you need to bear in mind when dealing with on wiki harassment is WP:Do not feed the trolls. If you come across something unpleasant tag it for speedy deletion, report the account to WP:AIV and/or email the oversight team. Opening threads on multiple high profile noticeboards and administrator's talk pages then proceeding to have a massive meltdown is exactly what the trolls want, and if you do it they are going to keep coming back. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nicely said. This is NOT victim shaming. This is due prudence. BusterD (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Truthfully, you being online or offline probably isn't going to do much to affect the response here on-wiki, so I wouldn't worry about whether being (in)active changes how this is dealt with. LTA reporting and blocking will happen 24/7, regardless of who the harassment might be targeted at. Giraffer (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There is clearly content on Cyberwolf's user page which is (a) not relevant to this project, and (b) inappropriate for a minor, in that it is encouraging the very sort of inappropriate behaviour being complained about. I suggest it be redacted, and Cyberwolf be informed that any attempt to restore it, or to add any similar material will result in a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for finally stating the obvious. I was trying avoid going there, thinking it would be better coming from a different editor. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::With the above in mind, Cyberwolf, one additional thing you can request is to ask for a WP:G7 deletion of your userpage, in which case we can delete the page and its history and no one would ever be able to see them again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Or even a WP:U1 would apply. Blow it up and start from scratch. BusterD (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Excuse me what is inappropriate •Cyberwolf•. talk? 00:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply|cyberwolf}} Such questions are best answered offline rather than on a high-profile public board. Do you have any web-savvy adult you can consult IRL? Alternatively, is any admin willing to volunteer to guide Cyberwolf over email and close this AN discussion? Abecedare (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::insane •Cyberwolf•. talk? 01:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Enough|1=This discussion has been closed twice but keeps getting added onto. The first, given the context, might have been reasonable. The second was not. If you think the closure was in error, WP:DRV is thataway. If you have concerns about the conduct of a user here, WP:ANI is that other way. Either way, we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop|Thanks everyone.—Alalch E. 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop|Nothing more to do here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I am noting here that I am reverting Sjakkalle's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (4th nomination), as OwenX had already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1284411729&oldid=1284393317&title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBarron_Trump_%284th_nomination%29 noted on the page] that he was in the process of closing the discussion. Sjakkalle was asked to respond to this on his talk page, but appears to have evaporated after making the close. For full disclosure, I was the administrator who approved the AfC request to move Barron Trump to mainspace, and I opposed deletion in the discussion, but the order of precedence for a discussion where the {{tl|closing}} tag has been applied is very clear, and unconnected to my participation in the discussion. BD2412 T 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, I must have started working on the closing statement before the pending close template came up. Somehow it did not trigger an edit conflict. Reverting the close is fine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, {{u|Sjakkalle}}. I will go ahead and close it now. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I accept all of the above as a peaceful resolution of this issue. BD2412 T 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Hatting this as side chatter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Unimpressed with BD2412's behavior in this, but probably nothing more to be done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

: Good. This isn't about you. BD2412 T 15:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::It is about you, though. Your unethical behavior is noted. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Your incivility has earned you such a filthy block log that one can take that as a compliment. BD2412 T 15:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Classy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{abot}}

{{hat|1=More asides about the above asides. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)}}

So Elli, can I at least mention here for posterity that BD2412's is lying about my block log? It has one "real" block for edit warring (of which I'm proud), and nothing else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Floquenbeam}} Yeah, sorry, wasn't meaning to let that slip by. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{re|Floquenbeam|Writ Keeper|Elli}} I have struck the controverted statement. I strove to act entirely ethically here, posting on this message board even though this was not required of me, and noting my own prior administrative involvement in the matter under discussion. BD2412 T 16:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That's interesting, I guess "controverted statement" is a synonym for "lie". Except you apparently don't have to apologize for a controverted statement, I suppose. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: I misconstrued your block log. I struck the comment here and apologized for that on your talk page. Is there something more that you want from me? BD2412 T 16:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I suppose it would have helped if the apology had been sincere, instead of tacking on the comment that my block log was just "less" filthy than first implied. But no, if you think you behaved ethically, there's not much else you could do that I would find satisfying. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This feels extremely petty. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{abot}}

I think if you have two admins analyzing a discussion who came to opposite conclusions then the AfC acceptor of the article shouldn't have the opportunity to decide which closure stands. And also shouldn't "no consensus" mean a return to status quo ante, of no article, remain as the article lasted a grant total of ten minutes without being at AfD. What a shame. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agree completely. I know that "no consensus" usually defaults to "keep", but in this instance there was no consensus for the redirect to be replaced by the AfC submission, so the redirect should stay. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::If you feel strongly about this, perhaps you should head towards Wikipedia:Deletion review and discuss the outcome there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Pppery}} To be clear, I did not make such a choice. I saw that OwenX had placed the banner on the page indicating that he was in the process of closing the discussion, but I had no idea how he would close the discussion. I saw that a different administrator had failed to observe the close in process. The outcome was not at issue. BD2412 T 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Aside about the aside about the aside. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm just a pleb here, but I find {{u|BD2412}}'s behaviour on this page completely inappropriate, especially as an administrator. Miles Wagner (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

: Reverting such an error is not itself an administrative action. Any editor could have done so — without taking the extra precaution of starting a discussion on this page to notify the community of the step being taken. BD2412 T 01:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Troll account blocked. WP:RBI. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

User:Seventeenmonths seems to be a sock of a blocked user (the user in question i dont know) _{along with that very sonic.EXE wording} should probably block em then figure out who puppeteer is before they make new accounts localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 17:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:what... Seventeenmonths (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::your userpage looks very suspicous "They said there's no use making another account... that they'll just find me again..." is an odd thing to say localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 17:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

American Communist Party was a redirect from 2004 until 2024, when a new organisation claimed the name and the redirect was changed to an article. The new article was changed back to a redirect after the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Communist Party.

Ad Orientem, the admin who closed the article, locked American Communist Party to prevent further disruptive recreations of the article. However, the issue was the page history of the original redirect was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Communist_Party_(2024)&action=history moved several times], including to an erroneous [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Communist_Party_(2024)&oldid=1278673091 second draft] by PhoenixCaelestis after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:American_Communist_Party another draft] by SocDoneLeft was declined twice.

The history of the original redirect is now at American Communist Party (2024). I thought to tag American Communist Party (2024) with db-g4, but a speedy deletion on its own would erase the page history as well. Is there any way to move the page history of American Communist Party (2024) back to American Communist Party? If not, then the new article should be tagged with db-g4 and a new lock placed on both targets. Yue🌙 00:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

: I do not believe any unusual admin action is necessary here at this moment. The question is whether the 1919 or the 2024 party is the primary topic for the term "American Communist Party" - right now we have the 1919 party as primary, which doesn't seem completely unreasonable. There's no need to worry about erasing the history here - it was deleted for a long time and only undeleted recently to make way for the draft. So, if you think G4 applies (it may well not), then feel free to tag it and let it meet its fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I will just follow the standard procedure then. Yue🌙 02:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Page deleted It's still a fringe micro party with no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. If it's recreated again without clear demonstration of notability, we may have to consider salting it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{re|Ad Orientem}} I would suggest redirecting to Communist Party USA (which is, after all, the leading American "Communist Party") and protecting the redirect. BD2412 T 03:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@BD2412 It appears that {{u|Significa liberdade}} has chosen to restore and migrate it to draft space. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I came across the page at the same time as you. I was planning on declining the G4 because the article is significantly different than the draft deleted via discussion last year, including at least two sources published after the deletion discussion. As such, I didn't feel like G4 applied. However, given your call, it seemed like draftification was a fair middle ground. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is it preferrable to merge the three drafts on the same topic? Draft:American Communist Party, Draft:American Communist Party (2024), Draft:American Communist Party (2024) (2). I don't know why multiple editors kept creating new drafts when it's pretty obvious that they were just working on Draft:American Communist Party. Yue🌙 04:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Does anyone feel a draft? More seriously, merging is probably a good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It's not hard to understand. Editors create a new draft when they are not aware there have been previous drafts. Not everyone checks beyond main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}I oppose redirecting to Communist Party USA. I agree with {{u|Ad Orientem}} that the contemporary ACP is a microparty, and a very strange one that seems to be almost entirely an online trolling operation. The CPUSA is unrelated, and though a small party, it has a long and very well documented history, many notable members, and was pretty influential in the 1930s and 1940s, which led to the phemonenon of McCarthyism in the 1950s. I has to issue warnings at Talk:Communist Party USA in late January and early February due to disruptive bickering between pro-ACP and anti-ACP editors. To understand the bizarre flavor of the controversy, please read MAGA Communism. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand opposition to a redirect. The fact that the modern party which calls itself the American Communist Party is so obscure supports the view people looking for the term American Communist Party on Wikipedia are unlikely to be looking for the MAGA communist party. They're much more like to be looking for CPUSA as much as it too is small. It's unreasonable to expect readers to know the precise name of the American communist party especially since it is small. Unrelated seems irrelevant. Just like when a murderer and some one more decent share a name or a very similar name the question is are people likely to be looking for the other? We don't really have a way to handle the 'this isn't the other thing' when the other thing isn't notable enough for an article so a small number of readers who are looking for the non notable thing might be confused but making it hard for readers to find what they want isn't it IMO. I'd add that the existence of redirect long before MAGA is some limited (as I don't disagree we have a lot of unnecessary redirects which could be deleted) evidence for its utility. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|The fact that the modern party which calls itself the American Communist Party is so obscure supports the view people looking for the term American Communist Party on Wikipedia are unlikely to be looking for the MAGA communist party.}} I may be entirely misunderstanding what is proposed here, but I think the chance that anybody searching for American Communist Party (2024) wants information about Communist Party USA is somewhere between vanishingly small and nil. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I guess this is really an issue for RfD but just wanted to say as long as we have articles on MAGA communism and Jason Hinkle I guess they are alternative targets with a hat note. But we definitely should keep sor redirect IMO. Again I just don't think we can assume people will definitely know the correct name of the American communist party although they know it exists. We only have a cat for communism in the US, the closest article we seem to have on the general subject is socialism in the US. Nor do we have a list of US communist parties page just a cat. So they're out as targets. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. American Communist Party (2024) is not a realistic redirect. As for moving it to draft space, while I'm not against it, I am highly skeptical that this particular political party will ever gain enough coverage to ring the WP:N bell. It strikes me as what people of my generation used to call a "Ma Bell" operation. Which is to say all the active participants could hold a meeting in a phone booth. But who knows. I've lived long enough to have seen stranger things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The history of the old redirect should not be present for any new article, if they are separate organisations. GiantSnowman 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am opposed to a redirect to the CPUSA article since it (correctly) does not mention the ACP. There have already been repeated attempts to shoehorn content about the ACP into the CPUSA article, and a redirect would legitimize that. A better redirect would be to MAGA Communism, if that article survives AfD. An alternative redirect target would be Jackson Hinkle. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have boldy changed the redirect for the ACP to Haz Al-Din. If MAGA Communism survives AfD we can move it to that. But for now I agree that the CPUSA Party is a suboptimal target. No objection to anyone who feels strongly about a different target changing it. This entire subject area is not one where I have strong views regards its place in the encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Captive to a blocked narrative for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{iplinks|50.221.225.231}}

You heard it before, and {{U|Valjean}} and others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia_investigation_origins_counter-narrative&diff=prev&oldid=1235599499 heard it last year]. I know, this is old, but I saw it and it's typical for the editor who, as {{U|DanielRigal}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.221.225.231&diff=prev&oldid=1284645857 just pointed out], has been right-wing trolling and insulting for quite a while now. User:Acroterion blocked them for the same kind of stuff I blocked them for, back in 2023 already, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.221.225.231&diff=prev&oldid=1177854268 their response] (wikilawyering about ADMINACCT) was repeated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.221.225.231&diff=prev&oldid=1284510455 in this response yesterday]. User:Liz is aware of the issue but I don't know if she saw the latest iterations yet. DanielRigal is all for a long block without talk page access and now that I see how long their track record of trolling is, I agree. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I concur with a long block and TPA revocation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one month without Talk page access. As I stated on the IP's Talk page, any administrator is free to extend the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• I didn't keep up with the User talk page discussion over today. I think that block is fair. This isn't a typical "bull in a china shop" vandal, they come back with some thoughtful counter-arguments. But they also attack other editors and that can't be tolerated. But, personally, I'm not a fan of exceedingly long blocks for IP editors so I think a month, with TPA removed, is sufficient. In my experience, many of these politically-minded trolls just move on to other discussion forums and message boards where they have no restrictions on their posts. We'll see if they come back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Since I didn't see it posted anywhere but saw the tags drop on his user pages, I thought some of the old hats around here might like to know that Roger Haworth (User:RHaworth) has passed away, some time ago actually. {{ul|Graham87}} has added a short memorial to the deceased Wikipedians page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for information. Truly one of our most hard working admins. May he rest in peace. Shankargb (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks for informing us. I have a different approach to adminning than he had in his glory days but I agree, he was hard-working. There was never any backlog in CSD categories when he was active. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Huh, didn’t realize RHaworth had passed, thanks for the heads-up. Guy was a machine with the admin work [118,796 enwiki edits], no denying that. Rest in peace, Roger. NXcrypto Message 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• When I saw the header I wa shoping it was going to say he was back. Bummer. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Aye, he was an invaluable workhorse. That said, there doesn't seem to be a place for admins of his temperament on Wikipedia anymore, for better or worse. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just saw this. Although I clashed with RHaworth on-wiki, I also met him in person and he was a lovely, intelligent and charming chap. I am very sorry to hear of his passing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• RHaworth had [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=RHaworth&namespace=2 a number of subpages in their userspace], which might be worth checking to see if he had anything in progress to be finished and promoted to article space. BD2412 T 01:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've had a look through all of them. Nothing is in a position to be moved to article space without any (or much) work, but the material relating to UK telephone history (spread across several pages) is potentially very valuable if it can be sourced properly. User:RHaworth/St Huberts Chapel contains a declined AfC draft which Roger moved into his userspace following deletion of the draft. Most (all?) of the material has since made its way into the article for Rowland's Castle, its locality, but it is a highly notable church which has been on my "to do" list for some time: I have a number of relevant book sources. I'll try to work on it as a priority as a tribute to a familiar name from my early days on Wikipedia. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The redirect from Humblebrag to Harris Wittels appears to be inappropriate. Given that the term "Humblebrag" has the potential to warrant a standalone article and is likely to receive incoming links from growing related articles such as Draft:False humility, I kindly request a review of this redirect. Please consider revising it if deemed appropriate. Arbabi second (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:@اربابی دوم: A redirect does not mean you can’t create an article. You can create a draft and submit it through AfC, and if the article meets our guidelines, it will be moved to the mainspace and the redirect will be removed. Alternatively, you can create the article directly, but I recommend going through the draft process. GrabUp - Talk 16:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::@GrabUp Thank you for your guidance. However, when I revisited the Related concepts section in Draft:False humility today to double-check, I noticed that the existing link was unexpected, so I ended up removing it.

::Since I believe this draft is important and I’m hoping the community will help expand it—especially given my own limitations in both English proficiency and knowledge of psychology—I’m trying to at least reduce anything that might cause confusion for other editors. Arbabi second (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Arbabi second, if you are seeking a review of a redirect, you shouldn't have come to WP:AN, this is an Administrators' noticeboard and we don't deal with content issues here. I agree that you should continue to work on your draft but you can always nominate a redirect for examination at WP:RFD but be prepared, you'll need to have a good argument for why this redirect should be deleted or retargeted. You probably shouldn't bring it to RFD until your draft article is ready for main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Liz Thank you for your helpful guidance. Arbabi second (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

: I don't see the problem here. I'd suggest that both Draft:False humility and any article on Humblebrag would be WP:DICDEF. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Atop|The IPs are now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello! 👋

It looks like User:Urabura might be circumventing their permanent block by making disruptive edits again—this time while signed out, using multiple IP addresses. The activity from these IPs matches almost perfectly. All IPs also seem to focus on the same pages, adding questionable claims and/or unsourced personal opinions as well as restoring the reverted edits made by recently blocked sockpuppet account User: Chick Pea Corea.

IP adresses in question:

• 83.6.191.74
• 31.61.168.44
• 83.24.151.191

Thanks, Blowwhite ^(Talk) 17:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, Blowwhite,

:If you think the editor is socking, you should file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urabura, not WP:AN. Checkusers will be reluctant to identify IP accounts with a blocked editor. But perhaps they could check for sleepers. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

{{atop|This discussion is already more heat than light with an obvious conclusion: this was an inappropriate close of a contentious discussion by an involved closer. The close is overturned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)}}

:{{RfC closure review links|1=Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine}} (Discussion with closer)

Closer: {{userlinks|DocZach}}

User requesting review: {{userlinks|Bluethricecreamman}} at 14:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Notified: User_talk:DocZach#Closure review notice

Reasoning: I'm counting 33 to 11 or so for FRINGE. Only 2 votes brought up the idea that the RFC was bad. Closer had also been involved in similar RFCs and in the topic area [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1282645022&oldid=1282599346&title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256194209&oldid=1251901217&title=Talk:Trans_woman], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256194505&oldid=1256194209&title=Talk:Trans_woman]

• Overturn. To a degree I share the closer's concern about what it means to declare an organization, rather than an idea, "fringe". That is a nuance that could be discussed in a well-thought-out close. This was not such a close. A strong argument needs to be made to close "against the numbers", and none was made here. Furthermore, a non-obvious close should not be made by someone who was a participant in a highly related discussion and, as I've argued below, the closer's commentary on gender topics in the past (the quality of the rhetoric, that is, not the side that he takes) calls into question his competence in this topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn. Irregardless of the reasoning within the closing, I think the INVOLVED issue has been established. This is certainly going to be a contentious topic and closing so it's best if the closer not have any appearance of involved bias. A superficial reading of the close suggests the editor did put thought into it and may be a valuable contributor working with other RfC topics. Springee (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn close [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256194209&oldid=1251901217&title=Talk:Trans_woman This edit] alone should make DocZach ineligible for closing this RfC. This is clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE by someone who claims not to believe that trans women are women. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• pinging {{u|LokiTheLiar}}, {{u|JonJ937}}, {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}}, {{u|Silverseren}} Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn: Clear WP:SUPERVOTE:

:* First off, I will say, I think a better example of an edit that should make closing the RFC involved, this comment in the spin-off RFC from the SEGM RFC about the pathologization of trans identities (which has a clear consensus), arguing the RFC should be scrapped and making nonsensical very FRINGE comments like {{tq|To label the mental illness recognition of transgender identity and Gender Dysphoria as a "fringe idea" does not make any sense.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1282645022&oldid=1282599346&title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard]

:* The close said {{tq|A majority of participants supported the proposal, often citing alignment with WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:DUE, and pointing to SEGM’s consistent divergence from the positions of major medical organizations.}} - they further pointed out multiple FRINGE positions that SEGM consistently takes (claiming ROGD exists/is evidenced, fighting to stop bans on conversion therapy on the grounds conversion therapy supposedly doesn't apply to gender identity change efforts, etc), citing the dozens of RS noting it's known for misinformation

:* {{tq|However, a substantial minority of editors opposed the designation, arguing that while SEGM’s positions are controversial or minority views, they overlap with policies recently adopted in some national healthcare systems.}} - the source for SEGM's policies overlapping with European healthcare systems is SEGM and op-eds and WP:OR - meanwhile see Transgender health care misinformation#European nations are banning gender-affirming care

:* {{tq|Several participants also questioned whether WP:FRINGE, which addresses ideas and claims, can or should be applied to entire organizations. This point was raised repeatedly and remained unresolved throughout the discussion.}} - And more votes noted they have no recognition or support from mainstream medical orgs, consistently advance FRINGE positions, etc. As I said in an amendment to the original post {{tq|by "WP:FRINGE organization," I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints}} - which the !voters overwhelmingly agreed was the case.

: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1282645022&oldid=1282599346&title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard This] shows them clearly !voting in an RFC that was directly spun off from the one they later closed; it essentially seeks consensus on a broader point that was central to the RFC about SEGM. Their argument, in that comment, is almost exactly the same as the ones they endorsed in their improper close of the SEGM RFC. That is as close as it's possible to get to closing an RFC that one has actually !voted in without actually doing so; they essentially took their !vote from the second RFC and turned it into a WP:SUPERVOTE in the main RFC. They also show clearly intense passions on the underlying dispute over trans healthcare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256194209&oldid=1251901217&title=Talk:Trans_woman here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256194505&oldid=1256194209&title=Talk:Trans_woman here]. Beyond that, the RFC itself shows a clear consensus; while RFCs are not a vote, the arguments that it was fringe were well-reasoned and the arguments against it were weak. Discounting such a clear numerical majority would require an extremely strong policy-based argument, which they completely failed to produce; their argument for disregarding the consensus essentially amounts to "some people disagree that this is proper", which violates WP:SATISFY. My hope is that this close was in error and that they merely forgot that they had previously weighed in on a related RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn Just gonna quote myself from DocZach's talk page because I think I said all I needed to over there:

:

WP:NOTAVOTE does say that a vote is not the same as consensus. However, consensus is the same as consensus. "Consensus" is not a jargon term here: it has the same meaning of "general agreement" that it has anywhere else. Or to put it more frankly, if you think that the opinion of over 75% of people in a discussion is not the consensus you are almost always wrong.
The job of a closer is not to decide whether the questions in a discussion have been resolved. If one side of an argument brings up a certain point and the other side doesn't find that point convincing, they have no obligation to WP:SATISFY the side that brought it up or attempt to refute the point. That a point was rarely mentioned does not necessarily mean it had merit and may very well mean the exact opposite: that opponents thought it was so weak it didn't deserve a response.

(Non-participant) Comment in response to {{u|Simonm223}}’s statement:’{{tq|This is clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE by someone who claims not to believe that trans women are women.}}' If this disqualifies someone from closing an RfC relating to gensex, then anyone who believes trans women are women should also be disqualified from closing this RfC. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Flat out nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Expanding on this, {{U|Sweet6970}}'s statement implies there's some doubt, within Wikipedia, that trans women are, in fact, women. This is not the case. Wikipedia, rightly, recognizes that trans women are women and that to say otherwise is a form of Transphobia. It is not a valid comparison to say that having prejudicial views and having non-prejudicial views are equally disqualifying. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I strongly disagree. An RfC closer doesn't have to take any particular ideological view on what the word "woman" means. Wikipedia articles follow the prevailing view in reliable sources that "woman" includes trans women, but that doesn't mean editors have to agree with that, and it doesn't mean all other views are transphobic. (Personally, I don't think there is any objective definition of "woman", and that "trans women are women" is true if you define your terms that way, but the same could be said of the converse.){{PB}}That said, Zach's past edits disqualify him for a different reason, which is competence to analyze complex gender topics. He does not present some well-grounded critique of prevailing philosophical views on the nature of gender, but rather asserts as fact several naïve misconceptions—that sex can be reduced to XX vs. XY chromosomes, that binary sex is an objective thing that exists in nature rather than being socially constructed, that chromosomes can accurately be inferred from a newborn's genitals, and that the words "male" and "female" refer exclusively and unambiguously to sex rather than gender. These are novice errors, made only a few months ago, that do not show the level of basic competence in a subject area to be closing an RfC specifically on an organization that focuses on the intersection of sex and gender. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

There are about 200 old open CfD discussions. I handled some of them, but it is a sprawling catchup to do. You should look at clearing the RfD backlog as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, LaundryPizza03,

:Have you considered having an RfA? That could help with the problems you point out. I'm serious! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I see now that Pppery has already proposed this solution (above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Non-admins can close all CfD discussions. While it would slightly help (non-admins still need to make a kind of edit request to implement the results), it sounds like the core of the problem is that nobody wants to evaluate the discussions, and Laundry becoming an administrator would not help with that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, you shot down my gentle suggestion, Compassionate727, how do you propose we handle this backlog? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:We have several excellent contributors and closers at cfd. And due to low turnout or other reasons, sometimes regular closers will comment in a discussion rather than close it in order to help achieve consensus - as noted at WP:XFD#CON. And I have no doubt there are many reasons that someone chooses to help out closing (or not).

:For myself, there typically are so many people who close these days, that I've tried to step back and let those who wish to do closings, do so. I think it's a skill and an experience worth learning and having for those who wish it.

:But when there's a backlog - like this - I'll dive in and help, as I can. Which I did this time as well.

:That said, (noting that I wouldn't wish adminship on anyone who didn't want it...), I'll second Liz's comment LaundryPizza03 : ) - jc37 08:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::I just noticed this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03. I think, considering the context above, posting the link here is appropriate. - jc37 18:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC) - jc37 18:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = {{Referred elsewhere|Wikimedia Commons issue}} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hi, please restore this file as it is a own creation by Hebrew graphic designer user Itzuvit and license should be Cc-by-sa-4.0 or something similar. רונאלדיניו המלך (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like this was posted to, and deleted from, Commons, not English Wikipedia. Here's the link to its now-empty page there: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hasadna_Mithamemet.png&action=edit&redlink=1]. You'll need to follow up with editors on Commons to see it restored, as English Wikipedia has no authority over other projects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

== There is no proof ==

{{atop

| result = {{Wrong venue|Talk:Sammy Davis Jr.}} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

There is no proof that the great Sammy Davis Junior was connected to Satinism, he may have meet Anton Lavey, but celebrities meet thousands of public members over decades! This should be removed from Sammy's Wilkapedia, as so many of his fans find this so replusive, and he is no longer with us himself to disagree with the statement!! 2A02:C7C:A56:2900:8449:A938:8A70:4942 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is a content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Sammy Davis Jr. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = public domain

| result = Unattributed, removed as excessive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

On Phinehas, a lot of the text seems to be copied. That starts from "Rabbanic Literature also asserts:The first judge of any importance after Gideon was". It is identical to https://sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj403.htm. I think that is probably copyrighted, although it could be in the public domain for some reason. This content is present in the following revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phinehas&diff=1283251113&oldid=1266258066 TagUser (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, it seems to be copied from this book: The Legends of the Jews, https://archive.org/details/legendsofjews0004ginz/page/42/mode/2up, which was written in 1909. Maybe it's not copyrighted? TagUser (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::@TagUser Yes, that'd be in the public domain, so it's not a copyright issue. It doesn't appear to be attributed though, so I've gone and just remove it all-- it should be edited down if readded. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Closed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Discussion has died down for weeks at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections. Needless to say this Cent-listed discussion really really needs a close. (Non-admin @Dw31415 also has a draft closure if anyone's interested in joining them instead of starting an entirely new close.) Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reiterating that it would be great if an uninvolved admin could close this - I know our pool is probably limited, as many admins have participated in the discussion, but it definitely needs a close! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = unprotected

| result = New pony now in place. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello! I submitted a new article (Draft:Rainbow Dash) to AfC, which was accepted by a reviewer. But since the article at Rainbow Dash is full-protected, the reviewer is unable to approve it. Could an admin please help and remove the redirect? Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{in progress}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{done}}. Note I have allowed the full-protection the previous redirect had to lapse, so a sharp eye should be kept on the article to see if it re-attracts the behavior that got the redirect locked several years ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you! I will keep an eye out for it. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think the reason why it was fully protected was that articles at this page title were brought to AFD three times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I looked into the history later and it was locked in 2012 after the third AfD...a bit more than "several years ago!" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Thankyou Barkeep49

| result = We þonk yow þryuandely — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

I have created Wikipedia:Administrators by language which tries to gather information admins have disclosed about languages they speak. This started as a bit of a throwaway comment in a functionary discussion, with me thinking that it would be easy to compile; it was mostly easy until several people said they only list their languages on Meta which upped the complexity. But I finished even though if I'd known how much work it was going to be, I wouldn't have started; there have been a handful times where I wanted to find an admin who spoke a particular language and while it's possible using the admin highlight script to go through the language categories it felt like a complete list might be of use to others. So here it is. I hope it is of some use (despite some known issues - like its love for Lua as a language - I've decided are not worth fixing). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting resource, thanks for pulling it together. I added myself on to the English list. Do you know what the "unknown level" is supposed to mean? I propose that the next project is updating the "timezones for different admins" list which is incomplete and from years ago. Of course, I'm sure some folks will not want to disclose this data. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Liz "unknown level" could be one one of a number of things. In my testing many of the issues with parsing data from Meta or when someone does something fancy with their userpage (ex the people who substitute parts of it from other pages) such that the script can't find the info it needs. Also thanks for manually adding your name to the list because it gives me a chance to say "that won't work". I've now added a page notice to alert people to this. When I run the script again (which I plan to do Monday and then roughly monthly) it will not capture any people added manually because I'm pretty sure people are more likely to continue using categories/babel templates than to know to update a fairly obscure page. You could of course appear on the list by adding the category to your userpage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, well thanks for that information. Can you identify the correct category for me? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nevermind, found it with :Category:User en-N. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Very useful, thanks. It missed a few odd languages, like Middle English (enm). That lua entry is a bit jarring—can't we just delete it manually?

:Instead of timezones, what would be great (though may be technically difficult) is use the xtools timecard to provide times most active. Some people are night owls, others early birds, so timecard may be more useful than timezone, and wouldn't give away information that's not already available about a person's location. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I could delete the lua bit, but as it stands now it's dynamically finding language codes (which also explains why it's not finding enm). I could definitely hardcode the language codes it looks for which would enable finding enm and get rid of lua, but I found something elegant in that it should automatically detect new ones. But that probably doesn't happen all that often and so not much would be lost by hardcoding. I don't know how much more time I want to spend developing this thing (as opposed to just periodically rerunning it and updating it) but if I get motivated I can look at a different approach to the language codes. If you know of any other languages other than enm it's not finding please do share. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::*rsjaffe, the list I was referring to is Wikipedia:List of administrators/Timezones but it's kind of buried in a category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, this is fun! I'm surprised at some of the gaps we've got, but also by some of the more unusual native languages in the list. And some administrators who are much too modest about their English. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::This will help everyone to navigate ENWP admins who speak foreign languages as well as who are doing well in other editions. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Why? For example, my mother tongue is Russian, but I have not actively edited the Russian Wikipedia since 2011 and will not be able to help with any issues there. Ymblanter (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|result=Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I've just come across a user who is block evading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop65565 is the user in question. I suspect that this user is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop6666, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop2006, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop4883368638, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop443535454 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop454555. There's currently a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coop65565 sockpuppet investigation] on this user. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ab}}

Looks like WP:RFPP has a little bit of a back log. Anyone mind using a mop to unclog it? ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=WP:BLOCKNOTBAN|1=In the future, WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)}}

There is a user vandalizing the article so I'm reporting them here, please ban them. Kansas Reimer (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{IPvandal|112.207.174.159}} blocked by Drmies. Kansas Reimer, for future reference, you can report ongoing vandalism to AIV. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Unblock request wizard. Feedback about the idea and its possible implementation are very much welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI:

There's been an IP hopper in Spain tagging 15-30 software articles a day for proposed deletion. I don't think it's malicious -- the articles have been inadequately referenced. The problem is that 50 to 70% of the time, I can find references using Google Books or Google Scholar. Others have potential redirects as alternatives to deletion.

I'm sort of a deletionist but I hate to see so much salvageable content going out the door.

I've hunted refs and added them to many articles. I may spend 30 minutes (or more) on an article that the IP spent 30 seconds tagging. I've either saved, redirected or added a PROD2 tag to dozens of articles but I can't keep up. Editing Wikipedia is just a hobby and I'm spending too much time on this problem.

I'd like to communicate with the IP but their Orange IP changes multiple times an hour so there's no way to leave a message suggesting reference sources and asking them to slow down.

I tagged recently PROD'd article talk pages with relevant WikiProjects in hopes one of the projects will pay attention. I also added {prodded} templates at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software#Proposed deletions (WP:PROD).

You can see the scope of this problem:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/A._B.&target=A.+B.&offset=&limit=250 My recent contribution history]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&action=history&offset=&limit=50 WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software recent history page]
• Lately I've been adding {Prodded} templates in batches of 6 just to avoid clogging others' watchlists

Today, this person PROD'd 8 articles in 40 minutes. I've had enough - I went back and removed the remaining PRODs from the last 3 days of proposed deletions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Prodding poorly referenced articles at that rate is reasonable behaviour. I do hope you've checked and found sources for everything you've deprodded?—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@S Marshall: no, I have not checked the 35 I just de-prodded.
• :Earlier, if you look at my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/A._B.&target=A.+B.&offset=&limit=250 recent contribution history] you'll see I de-prodded many more after extensive reference checking and adding references; I redirected most of the rest. When you see 10 or 30 minutes between my edits, that's because I was searching and reading.
• :From Wikipedia:Proposed deletion
• :*{{tq|"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion."}}
• :*{{tq|"PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."}}
• :Given the volume of PRODs, the nominator's recklessness, their terrible batting average, our inability to communicate with them and the extent of content potentially deleted, I believe I've taken an responsible course in accordance with WP:IAR. I'd rather keep 5 bad articles that can still be deleted in the future than lose 15 that are gone for good.
• :I've brought this here for several reasons:
• :*I personally believe any use of WP:IAR should subsequently be run by others
• :*I want to flag to admins reviewing PRODs that software PRODs from Spanish IPs probably can be kept or redirected with some checking.
• :*There's grossly inadequate WP:BEFORE
• :*We need to find a way to deal with this.
• :*I'd like some more eyes reviewing CAT:PROD
• :*I don't have time to give each article a careful check.
• :I estimate I've spent 30-40 hours on this problem this week.
• :--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think you should consider reprodding the ones you deprodded without checking. It isn't up to you to give each article a careful check; you can leave them for others, and if there are insufficient volunteers to patrol all the prods at the moment, then as Liz correctly points out, they're easily restored.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::As I've noted in my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VSdocman&diff=prev&oldid=1283440340 edit summaries], I think all of those articles should be discussed before any deletion. -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Okay, well, you're within your rights to deprod them. Will you at least go back and add the appropriate maintenance templates to the articles you deprodded?
• ::::We need to be crystal clear that finding poorly sourced articles is helpful, prosocial behaviour, even in someone who never writes anything.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::S Marshall, I agree about prosocial behaviour. That why I brought this to the calmer WP:AN page and not the bear pit at WP:ANI. I see these PRODs as a content problem, not something to be sanctioned based on what we know. How I wish we could somehow communicate with this person. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@S Marshall: maintenance templates -- working on them. May be a few days. I also need to tag all the talk pages with :Template:Old prod templates. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@S Marshall: all done with the 35. There are probably many dozens of other articles out there that need {oldprod} notices on their talk pages. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Several additional observations:
• ::*The IP does not notify the article's creator
• ::*The IP does not put :Template:old prod's on article talk pages.
• ::*When the IP PRODs an article and the PROD template notifies them that the article has been PROD'd or AfD'd before, they ignore the warning and move on
• ::**This has made me wonder about their motivation. Why would they ignore the notice to stop?
• ::A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• I know I've talked about this editor elsewhere but I'll just repeat the highlights. I first notice the editor I refer to as "the IP from Madrid" around 2020. Their IP address changes frequently and their only activity is PROD'ding articles on old software they believe is outdated and or unimportant. They tag in spurts, they were very active 2 or 3 years ago and then stopped editing and only recently have reappeared. I have asked editors in the past what they thought of this tagging behavior and no one seemed to have any objections and/or they also thought these articles were deletable. I'd estimate that they are responsible for the deletion of hundreds of articles on software, primarily from the 2000s. But for all I know, this editor could have been PROD'ding articles for much longer, before I started reviewing them as an admin and noticed this editor.{{pb

}}I don't think this activity should result in a panic about their activities but it would be good to get more editors reviewing articles and files that are tagged for Proposed deletion which receive much less attention than articles that pass through AFD discussions (but they still get more attention than CSDs). {{pb

}}Regarding A.B.'s suggestions, if you review Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators, you'll see that a reviewing admin is only supposed to check to make sure that articles and files have been appropriately tagged for 7 days with a tag that includes a valid deletion rationale and to check to see that no objections to deletion have been raised. Otherwise, admins are just like other editors who can or can not raise objections to a tagged article or file, they have no extra obligations. BEFORE doesn't fall on the reviewing admin and it applies to AFDs, not PRODs. The guide for PRODs can be found at WP:PRODNOM. Right now, I know of 4 admins who regularly or occasionally review PROD'd articles and files, if other admins took on this task, they might have their own personal approach to reviewing PROD'd articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• :Also, PROD'd articles are never "gone for good". If you come across a subject whose article was deleted through Proposed deletion, it can always be restored if there are no other outstanding issues (like copyright problems). Any of these deleted software articles can be restored upon request by the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Liz, of these 35 articles, the number of monthly pageviews, excluding bots and spiders, ranged from 16 to 273. The median for this group was 59. The median for all Wikimedia articles (not pages) was under 5.
• ::Probably thousands of readers will look for similar but deleted articles before an actual editor decides they want to start one. Only then will someone find that we used to have an article. -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I am not an admin, but I regularly check the list of PRODded articles and sometimes redirect or unprod some. When it comes to these software articles, I agreed with the deletion of many of those I checked, but did not know at the time that the editor was not notifying the page creator, and had I know I probably would have given more scrutiny or at least left a notification to the IP and the article authors. Reconrabbit 16:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:If a registered user nominated multiple articles that fail PRODNOM (before nom #3 and during nom #2 especially) and can't be stopped otherwise, they'd likely be topic banned. Why not just treat this the same way? Nobody (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Topic bans have to be communicated to the person banned, and this one doesn't get messages. They're enforced by technical measures that are impractical to apply to rapidly-changing IP addresses.—S Marshall T/C 09:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If they ignore talk page messages it's not our problem but theirs (Competence is required). Sure, blocking isn't the perfect way to deal with it due to the fast IP changes, but that's something similar to LTAs. RBI (possibly without the B) should by applied for all these noms. Nobody (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)