The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I was suggested to make a post here by editor @DanielCase. I edit Wikipedia in another language and will try to make this report to the best of my ability.
Last week I translated a page about a village that existed in 6 different languages. I also added information based on historical research I have been involved in. Before making the translation, I asked for advice because there was a page about the commune Răcăria and a separate page about the village Răcăria in the Romanian language. I was advised to keep them separate, and after more reading I agreed. As you can see, I made an effort to have a discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#problem_with_merger
My page was patrolled and nobody had any issues with it. I was simply editing at my own pace.
Then an editor named @Biruitorul started bullying me. I want to assume good faith, but I cannot describe this as anything else but bullying.
I saw an empty page and reverted the edit, as I was in the process of developing the article. I added a comment explaining I had created a page about the village as a separate entity: “Reverting the redirect. This is a page dedicated to the village, not the commune, and the page exists on Romanian Wikipedia.”
Meanwhile, Wikipedia rules describe his behavior as edit warring. Objectively, you can read the discussion there, where he repeatedly tried to force his own interpretation, using the term “consensus” which he defined himself. You can also see I responded immediately and attempted to engage in discussion and understand his concerns.
He refused to have a conversation with me and instead asked for me to be blocked, claiming I was “edit warring”.
He has made 6 attempts over the past few days to merge my newly created and patrolled article about the village and erase its content, repeatedly invoking his own “consensus” as justification:
I was about to edit the main part of the article when he again removed all my content. I responded: “Please stop edit warring. Nominate for deletion if needed. Otherwise this is not how merges or consensus are done. Please stop copying information from the village page without attribution.” He did not stop.
Moldova is a small country. All villages in the district have their own Wikipedia pages. There is no issue with that. A commune is an administrative unit containing several villages, and information is limited. All communes also have Wikipedia pages, and the structure is generally consistent.
I was then blocked from editing my own page for one month for “edit warring” by some ai bot. I noted that I am fully willing to accept when I am wrong. I am asking how removing all content from an article 6 times, after it was patrolled twice and approved, is not considered edit warring, while my actions of adding sourced information and engaging in discussion are interpreted that way.
Would someone argue that my contribution is not made in good faith, not meaningful, or is disruptive?
I understand this editor has an old account, but he is not an administrator. Does that mean rules do not apply equally, and that an editor like me can be treated in this way? I request that my topic block be removed, so I can actually finish editing article I created. I also request that this editor be reminded of the rules, and warned to stop deleting my page and based on his own personal preferences.
I’m not bullying anyone, just going through the normal editing process. Myself and two other experienced editors (here and here) have both objected to the split and advised Willywilly1111 to be less confrontational and seek other methods of dispute resolution. In response, simply denies the existence of a consensus against a split, which clearly exists.
Willywilly1111 has not notified me of this discussion, and has already been blocked twice in two days. I think that speaks for itself. — BiruitorulTalk07:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano yes, I know. Feel free to review my article, I have no controversial information there. I did not even get the chance to format the core body text that I typed out from the sources in Romanian language. It is underrepresented region, and much information is not digitalized. I made the page so people could read it and it is preserved for educational purposes, in a clear, accessible way. Willywilly1111 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano oh. I get it. Anyway, this form of edits is not consistent with any of the edits about geographic locations made in Moldova.
Absolutely all larger villages in Moldova have dedicated Wikipedia pages, and all have pages for communes. Commune pages include an election breakdown of the city council.
I have not seen or found a single page about a commune in Moldova where the page of the main village with a population over 1000 people was removed 6 times and forcibly merged with it, along with a group of other 2–6 villages that are part of the commune. Why not even one such article exists, with fully completed information? I think this perfectly speaks about the broad consensus in the country on this topic.
Villages make up ~82% of all localities of Moldova. There is not one such "commune" page in Moldova that merges history of a bunch of villages with no common history. Then why should the page I created, that exists in 6 other languages, be forcibly removed 6 times? Willywilly1111 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Willywilly1111: a few remarks, purely for your information:
I don't know what the legal status of a 'commune' or 'village' is in Moldova, but the relevant notability guideline for populated places is WP:NPLACE, which should help you determine if the subject of this article has inherent notability or needs to establish it via the general WP:GNG guideline.
Whether articles exist in the English Wikipedia on other similar places in Moldova does not in and of itself tell us whether one should exist on this place; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Whether an article on this place exists in other language versions of Wikipedia does not mean that one should necessarily exist in the English Wikipedia, as each language version is a totally separate project with their own criteria for inclusion.
History of the article shows what edits this editor performed on the article. No experienced editors participated in the discussion or reached any form of consensus. He did not inform me or attempted to have a discussion with me, while deleting my article 6 times.
One of his friends he invited tried to gaslight me by claiming that census records are now secondary sources, and later made a range of rather dismissive and insulting comments toward me here: Talk:Răcăria#c-Dahn-20260420183700-Willywilly1111-20260420172200
I asked if he has any argument to provide except for insults, and he could not present any argument.
This user also copied my content without attribution into his own poorly sourced and repetitive article, and has been attacking my edit requests. I added a scholarly book, a collection of research, and extracts from a major newspaper in the country at that time mentioning an event that occurred in the city.
He then attacked the owner of the newspaper, claiming it is "antisemitic propaganda." I was truly struck because my text is about a natural disaster that happened in the village in the 1900s and about people who lost their homes, and it has nothing to do with Jews and not "antisemitic propaganda." Talk:Răcăria, Rîșcani#c-Biruitorul-20260421050200-Willywilly1111-20260420224200
Wikipedia rules say you are not allowed to merge a page based on your own opinion; there must be a nomination for deletion and a consensus there. Instead, he chose to remove my content 6 times.
I was blocked because of the misleading reports of this user. I do not see any violation outside that.
On April 15, I asked for advice, and experienced editors suggested keeping the pages separate. Two more page patrollers also reviewed the page, so it is misleading when Buruitorul says it did not happen. That makes it 3 administrators and page patrollers + me.
You’re right, let’s focus on conduct. The heart of the problem, as I see it, is that we have in Willywilly1111 an editor who will simply not listen to others, who refuses to consider other viewpoints, to compromise, to think that perhaps more experienced editors might have a point worth listening to.
His approach is to revert to his preferred version, treating ongoing discussions with disdain, and when a consensus against his position emerges, to deny that a consensus exists. He’s repeatedly mentioned his (unverifiable) status as a historian, telling us that we don’t know anything and should stay away. He responds to each polite suggestion with walls of text, not giving any kind of ground. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:STICK, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:CIV, WP:AUTHORITY, WP:COMPETENCE (given his repeated WP:PSTS violations) all come to mind as relevant to his case.
How does one deal with such a mindset? I suggest a topic ban on Moldova-related articles, given what we’ve seen so far. BiruitorulTalk09:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
The user is partially blocked from their current main focus of editing for a month, which is part of why they came here to complain. I'd argue most of this can be resolved by finding a binding, enforceable consensus about the underlying issue, which is a content one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. But when the underlying attitude is “I’m a historian with a bunch of secret archives and you guys are just amateurs, so kindly buzz off, and consensus isn’t actually consensus (unless it agrees with me), and here’s another sixteen paragraphs showing why you’re wrong, so what do you say about that?” — well, it’s difficult to see how we move forward. — BiruitorulTalk10:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
I'd argue that a topic-ban from Moldova topics for refusal to discuss is the bare minimum. I get the feeling that this topic-ban would very likely escalate, however, given the response to my comment on CTOP scope above. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM19:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano You mentioned that I refused to discuss the bare minimum. That does not qualify as a bare minimum? How am I supposed to respond on Wikipedia when someone is trying to tell me that a census is not a primary source, and that publication by the National Museum of a country are "dug up from its one copy in a commune archive" and are not reliable sources?
I read on the instructions pages what is suitable for article and what is not, what is primary and what is not, and how to use archive materials. Why do Wikipedia editor publish these pages then? Are these guidelines false then or outdated? Where do I find the current explanations? Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources
Do you see that I came to the talk page on April 18 and tried to engage in the discussion, and nobody actually had a discussion with me there, while Biruitorul was removing all content from my page 6 times because of his own preference, not waiting for us to reach any form of conclusion?
Honestly, I'm not sure that even a topic ban on Moldova-related articles gets to the heart of the problem. This editor has spread hostile discussions of their content dispute among a half-dozen different locations now. They've continually accused people of being AIs, a curious complaint considering they left part of ChatGPT's response in one of their unblock requests and said they originally wrote the article in question with AI. Hi! I was topic-banned from the page I created by an AI, so I posted a complaint about it.
I think that this editor is here to build an encyclopedia, but their personal encyclopedia, not a collaborative one. They've made zero effort to learn any of English Wikipedia policies and guidelines beyond finding little tidbits to try to use as weapons in their edit warring. I don't trust this editor to edit about Moldova, but given this editors tendentious, adversarial approach, and troubling approach to sourcing, I'm not sure I trust this editor to collaborate effectively right now on marshmallows, clouds, Taylor Swift, Orange Fanta, the 1985 Chicago Bears, mustache wax, or any topic. An INDEF doesn't have to be a long one, but it will at least get this editor to slow down and show a real desire to be part of this project if they want to continue working on it. I'll Support a Moldova topic ban is that the extent of consensus, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree @CoffeeCrumbs @Jéské Couriano @Phil Bridger"Hi! I was topic-banned from the page I created by an AI, so I posted a complain", I meant that I was banned by an AI bot from editing the page I created, who did not review my response.
I think that the editor is attacking me on purpose. Your are objective editors, so read it, please. What am not listening to? Look at the paragraph in question. " The rains of autumn 1912 caused landslides in Răcăria, several houses were moved or severely damaged. As the newspaper "Drug" wrote on September 10, 1913, for a whole year the requests of the sufferers for help "traveled" around, and the gubernial authorities rejected their pleas."
What does it have to do with the statement made by @Biruitorul, allegedly in good faith, such as " Pavel Krushevan, who was the first publisher of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and instigated the Kishinev pogrom. I think it’s fair to label Krushevan an antisemitic propagandist."
It has nothing to do with his "antisemitic propaganda". This is a story from one of the biggest newspapers in the country at that time, reporting on a natural disaster that occurred in a village, and people lost their homes. Krushevan was the owner of the newspaper.
@ToBeFreeI was referring to you because you never addressed my comment where I complained that a page should not be removed 6 times before we reach a consensus. I am not going to pretend I know everything. I looked up the rules to understand why someone is removing my page 6 times. Wikipedia:Merging
Where are new editors supposed to ask for help? This is what the rules say: “If you have reason to believe that merging an article is controversial, nominate it for merging at AfD.” I would admit if I am wrong. The rules do not say someone can forcibly white out my article 6 times. Are these rules wrong? Because otherwise it is just confusing for people like me and feels like bullying. I hope you can understand that.
Nobody talked with me when I shared my concern. Is there one real person who can actually explain if a person is allowed to remove my page 6 times, which was patrolled 2 times because of his own preference, and then pretend that there is a consensus when it is not reached and the discussion was not over? That is not called “edit warring”?
One editor merges it 6 times without any discussion, while the creator asks to let them finish the page and use proper channels to address the issue?
You are currently blocked because you had edit warred after a block for the same behavior on the same page expired.
Biruitorul would be have been blocked if they had not stopped to revert. Biruitorul would be blocked if they continue after the page protection expired.
@ToBeFree Am I allowed to participate in the discussion? I was not allowed to finish my editing of the page, or even add sources. I just managed to typed out the text that I was translating and then the block occurred. Can I be unblocked, so that I make the edits and add the materials? Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
You are (and have explicitly been) invited to the discussion both on your talk page and in the nomination statement there.
If there are sources which influence the subject's notability (see WP:42 for an oversimplified summary) or generally could, by their existence, influence the direction of the deletion discussion, then these can simply be mentioned there and later (or by others) used in the article. The current quality of writing or similar temporary things you could fix when unblocked are generally not relevant to these discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano , I am glad that @ToBeFree made the nomination discussion. I hope you understand how it feels when you article gets remover 6 times for no reason. I think the discussion is fair, and I would add information there, as ToBeFree suggested. Willywilly1111 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Could I also say that the user’s tone isn’t the most pleasant? When I read something like this or like this, I can’t help picturing a police interrogator grabbing me by the neck under the lights. And it’s invariably the most minor stuff imaginable. I find it rather exhausting, myself. — BiruitorulTalk22:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Biruitorul It looks to me that you struggle to admit when you are wrong. No, I am not going to agree that a census is not a primary source, or similar nonsense. You are free to have any fantasies you want.
Like it or not, I will obtain all copies of the books and publish a page about the village. I just do not have them in one place. The consensus in Moldova is very clear on this type of articles. Feel free to make as many insulting comments as you want when you have no real argument to make. Willywilly1111 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@The Bushranger I consider this to be a person attack by this users towards me, while he ignored the rules 6 times, forcibly removing my page, accusing me of edit warring. To note: he was at the same time removing my page against the rules 6 times. (which is also the same edit warring, that he started, and not me) That is a fair observation and nothing more. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Even if somebody else personally attacked you first, It looks to me that you struggle to admit when you are wrong and Feel free to make as many insulting comments as you want when you have no real argument to make are not fair observations, they are aspersions. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
You're invited to discuss a second article related to all of this below this comment , or to start an AfD discussion if you think it's necessary. I am mentioning this only because of the topic ban proposal below. Editors might be interested in seeing and discussing other contributions from the user before judging. SuperΨDro23:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Proposal: Topic-ban Willywilly1111 from the Moldova topic area, broadly construed
Willywilly's responses and demeanour above suggest less a willingness to collaborate and more a desire to dictate; in conjunction with what I can see on Talk:Răcăria I think that Willy should spend some time in different topic areas they don't have as strong an opinion about for a little while. I am proposing an indefinite topic-ban for Willywilly1111 from the Moldova topic area, and this is, as I noted above, a bare minimum. Whether or not this should strictly be a community sanction or as Arbitration enforcement I will leave open. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM23:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano Where is my desire to dictate? Removing a page 6 times without a discussion is called collaboration and not more a desire to dictate? Or do you want to say that the rules were not ignored? It was only an editor here who made the nomination. Or is a census not a primary source?
"I am going to collaborate now, I declare that census is not a primary source, because I say so, if you do not agree, that is your problem. I am right"- It sound ridiculous, don't you think? How do you respond to something like this is in a right demeanour? Willywilly1111 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC
Support as a first-line action; although I worry that this won't address the core issue I really hope it will give them the opportunity to step back and refocus.
They still refuse to accept that they've been edit warring, show strong ownership of articles and it looks like they've been calling other editors "AI" and "bots" as a form of attack/retaliation on multiple pages - here, at the Teahouse and again at the edit warring noticeboard.
I doubt that they genuinely thought they were dealing with any form of automation, I believe that they made this claim to disparage their opponents by inferring they aren't consciously thinking & acting robotically. To me, this is a form of personal attack.
Both the AFD and this discussion are being dominated by Willywilly1111 replying to virtually every comment (usually with the same points) and very little concession.
I don't see any point where they've clearly admitted they were wrong either. Yes, the article was moved/merged six times, but that doesn't change the fact that Willywilly1111 edit warred, is personally attacking other editors & overwhelming discussions with replies to pretty much every post by someone who disagrees with their opinion.
@Blue-Sonnet, an admin above left a comment that I agree with. @Chaotic Enby Wrote that both editors were edit warring, and I believe that is true. Biruitorul never acknowledged that his behavior was simply wrong and not how the topic is dealt with.
I apologize if repeating that removing an article ignoring the rules 6 times is wrong, because nobody listened to me. I also do not think that using AI to quickly fix grammar is prohibited on Wikipedia, as long as it has nothing to do with the content. I use a Chrome extension to automatically proofread the text. It is very convenient. Feel free to try it.
You support a topic ban, can you demonstrate any bad faith edits made by me on the topic rather than asking for a discussion on it? Rebuttal and discussion are allowed at the AfD. I was told I am allowed to participate and engage. I believe replying to someone making false claims regarding the article I wrote makes perfect sense. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
The thing is we have no way of knowing that using AI to quickly fix grammar has nothing to do with the content, because AIs hallucinate and change things even when told to 'just fix the grammar'. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Just for fun, I asked Gemini (both the Fast and Pro versions) to "fix the grammar in this sentence". Each suggested three versions ranging from the closest to the original to the biggest rewrite. The latter were as follow:
There is no way to ensure an AI stays true to the original content; despite being told to 'just fix the grammar,' hallucinations can lead the model to inadvertently rewrite the narrative. — Gemini 3 Fast
We cannot guarantee that using AI to correct grammar will leave the underlying content intact; AI models frequently hallucinate and alter meaning even when explicitly told to focus solely on grammar. — Gemini 3.1 Pro
@The Bushranger @Chaotic Enby I agree that AI can hallucinate. I have seen it hallucinate many times. But i think it is fine using it for formatting. As long as it makes sense, and a real person is actually reading it. I am not making claims like it is 100% accurate. For instance, I noticed that Claude is usually better with formatting historical text. I tried Gemini, but did not like it. It is bad for writing, at least based on my personal experience. Willywilly1111 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@The Bushranger I agree with changing content too. It happens. When I need something precise, I always add "do not change my context" to the prompt. I have noticed it makes a difference. I recommend trying it. Willywilly1111 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree, I am not saying that it is not important. But you know that some people are dyslexic and may have different difficulties using different devices, and many other things. I think productivity tools are useful. Anyway, I am not sure how that is related to my report. It is just for a broader discussion. I am not against any tools. Willywilly1111 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I prefer human typos to AI writing; if I want to talk to an AI, I can talk to Gemini. I prefer someone waiting to be at a proper keyboard again to someone quickly typing through an AI on their phone. And it's an encyclopedia after all; building an encyclopedia is not something everyone can participate in, and it does generally require some degree of writing skills. The whole concept of encyclopedia creation is inherently ableist to a degree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
But you know that some people are dyslexic and may have different difficulties using different devices, and many other things. And for literal decades these people successfully edited Wikipedia (and in many cases, still do) before the current crop of LLMs were created. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@The Bushranger all your points make sense. And yours too @ToBeFree. I am of the opinion if a tool makes a person's life easier, helps them with something they struggle with, makes them better at something, they should use it. That is part of the progress. I am not saying that a person with no knowledge about, let’s say, a new drug for the flu should tell ChatGPT “write me a Wikipedia article about drug X” and then publish it. That is absolutely not okay and should not be a practice for an encyclopedia. Willywilly1111 (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Honestly, my concern was that I couldn't see any clear acknowledgement of the edit warring so I supported the proposal in order to prevent it from reoccurring. I also felt that your posts calling other editors AI wasn't ideal either.
If you understand that edit warring isn't acceptable then I'm happy to rescind my support - blocks & bans are preventative, so I'm just looking for evidence that it won't happen again (check out this essay if you haven't already).
If someone takes an action that you don't agree with - whether rightly or wrongly, we have plenty of processes to resolve that without edit warring.
Can you please read through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page and just give me a very quick paragraph on how you would have approached this same situation differently had you known about it at the time? If you can do that I'll be happy to reconsider.
BTW The mention of AI at the bottom of my post wasn't too important (hence it being at the bottom) but I felt it was a little ironic considering your earlier posts. Plus, as The Bushranger mentions, AI can go rogue so I'd honestly avoid it entirely until you're a bit more experienced - you'll need to be able to tell whether it's changed something to the point that it's negatively impacted your edit & that's much harder to do than you'd think. Better be safe than sorry! Plus taking extra time to review your work is never a bad thing IMO. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@Biruitorul listen, I am allowed to made a nomination for a page that has zero sources. I made a detailed assessment, and made a polite and respectful nomination. This page has zero secondary sources. You refused to show me any secondary sources to prove your point and reach a consensus. This is a way people have discussion on wikipedia, so let's have it in a civil way. Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
for a page that has zero sources this is a hilarious blatant lie, not only because you can clearly see the article has indeed sources, but also because the content in question including its sources was written by Willywilly1111 themselves, having been copied and summarized from one article to another by another editor.
What this user is arguing is that because the sources deal with the village, they don't deal with the commune it is a part of. Pure nonsense. SuperΨDro23:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I read the WP:ATD rules, and made assessment. If my statement that the "article has zero sources" is a hilarious blatant lie, can you demonstrate the lie?
All I see is primary sources, only raw census, and not even one mention of the "commune". Am I wrong? What part of it is blatant lie?
I will acknowledge that I am wrong immediately if you show me one source I was mistaken about in the assessment. I am inviting everyone to take a look at and tell me what I got wrong. Willywilly1111 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet Of course I understand that "edit warring isn't acceptable". I made practically no edits on English wikipedia, and my only page I translated got removed 6 times. I think it is a normal reaction. I asked for help at the tea house and did not know how to address it, and an editor told me to make a report here.
You made edits on another page I translated and want to improve. I just did not get the time for it. It requires time.
I do not think it is a bad page. Gheorghe Râșcanu I translated it as it was, and will provide better sources. It is a well known historical figure from the 19 century. A city and district were named after him. I was surprised nobody translated it before. I do not think it would harm anyone on the topic Moldova, to have an article translated about a person a region in Moldova is named after. Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet To answer your question: Had I known about the dispute resolution process at the time, I would have handled it differently by slowing things down and moving the conversation to the talk page instead of continuing to revert edits. I tried solving it my own way here, on the talk: User talk:Biruitorul#Răcăria, Rîșcani I apologize that was not a proper request.
I would have explained my concerns about the lack of reliable secondary sources more clearly and tried to get other editors involved earlier, rather than trying to resolve it directly through editing. I was struggling to even save my edits, due to the edit conflicts.
If we still could not reach agreement, I would have asked for outside input through a third opinion or a noticeboard. On April 15, before creating the page, I asked advice at the tea house, on how to proceed, and that was a mistake. A person there told me to keep it separate. I was not aware that was a wrong place to ask.
The main difference would have been focusing on discussion and consensus building from the start, instead of letting it turn into back and forth editing. Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for this, it's a good answer. You've pinged me a few times across different pages but I need to hold off on making any amendments for the moment. Your new AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria has left me a little confused, I need to read through everything to fully understand what's happening in order to make a fair decision. Please bear with me. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Support. All of this is the result of an insanely hysteric and stubborn reaction. This dispute has resulted on two AfDs, discussions on multiple user talk pages and forums, three unblock requests within 3 days, and it has involved a dozen editors by now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria in particular is a disruptive reaction to the other AfD. This user does not mind breaking years-long common practice so their prefered text is kept. This has been a huge time sink for everyone and it needs to end. SuperΨDro23:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
As a note. This editor wrote that my factual source assessment is a lie, he wrote that "zero sources this is a hilarious blatant lie," However, when I asked him to demonstrate one sources that I got wrong, he failed to do that. Now he calls this "insanely hysteric and stubborn reaction".
I also said that I would immediately acknowledge it if I got at least one source wrong.
Is the factual source assessment “hysteric,” or is it hysterical to call it a “lie”? This looks more like actual bullying to me. Willywilly1111 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano, I may not know the rules, but this comment about content was made on this matter that we are discussing here, just on top of your messages, not on the AFD. But this individual accused me of making a "hilarious blatant lie" source assessment here. Nobody is going to go and check, so what is the point then attacking me here in his way? I should not reply and say that this statement is false? That is a big accusation to make, don't you think?
To explain it again: Willywilly1111 states the article has no sources (lie), which I find particularily ironic considering they added those sources , later being merged and summarized into the other article by another editor . What they mean is that sources that deal with the villages do not deal with the commune they're part of . So "there are no sources about the commune". An absolutely nonsensical attempt at bending the argument in favor of keeping one article and deleting the other. SuperΨDro09:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
This is bludgeoning. I hope you understand I will not be replying to this user anymore. Super Ψ Dro is making false statements and is deflecting.
The article has no sources that mention the subject. The article has zero secondary sources. Here is the source assessment. This user failed to show one source in my source assessment that I got wrong. I think it speaks for itself.
A large portion of the body text is copied from my article, which describes the village and does not even briefly mention the subject. [29]. If my source assessment is wrong - demonstrate which one I got wrong.
It's not bludgeoning, and I very strongly recommend that you reassess your behaviour in light of your partial blocks being expanded. I'm on the verge of disregarding the topic-ban discussion in favour of starting a siteban discussion. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM18:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Given that this discussion has been running for almost 48 hours, and that no one has dissented, would someone like to close it?
After taking a 13-hour break, Willywilly1111 fired off four edits in quick succession:
I respectfully submit that this show has gone on long enough. How much more of this misery are we supposed to endure? — BiruitorulTalk18:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
When an unrelated editor voted to keep the article, Biruitorul replied to that claiming that the "village" does not exist.
Biruitorul and his friends, also claimed that a village is not a legal unit now, but could not provide a law to support their personal opinion.
First, he whined about me - I do not "whine" and I am allowed to talk about your conduct with whoever I want.
Then, he whined about Super Dromaeosaurus- I make a factual rebuttal, and do not whine. It Super Dromaeosaurus, your fried, you invited to the talk who cannot make a factual argument.
Last, more inchoate whining- asking for third party opinion is now whining, because Biruitor cannot find one secondary source for his article.
I think this form of conduct by this user is clearly concerning. It shows he is unable to accept when he is clearly wrong, even when the law of the country is against his personal assertions. Now he is insulting me by saying that I am “whining.” To note, I have never made any disrespectful comments about him.
I clicked on the link you added with the bold face claim that he was claiming that the "village" does not exist only to find that the comment says absolutely nothing of the sort. Misquoting people like that is disruptive in a discussion like this one. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Noting that I have extended the p-block to include the AfD where they continued to bludgeon. Support a topic ban at a miniumum. This editor has shown they cannot edit collaboratively in this area. StarMississippi18:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi, would you describe the conduct of Biruitorul on the AfD as not bludgeoning? [34] I am bludgeoning, but he is not, for some reason? Or the rules do not apply to him, for some reason? We contributed 50% to that AfD, failing to provide one real argument, claiming that a village does not exist 10 times. Willywilly1111 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Willywilly1111, you've made 22 comments to that AFD, most of which are long-winded treatises seemingly designed to be impenetrable. Dromaeosaurus has only made six, all of which are on the shorter side. Note that this is just me going off of counting signatures. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM18:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
All my comments is a factual rebuttal, when Buruitorul writes something that is false. As false, as saying that a village is not a legal entity, ignoring what the coutry law says.
While Buruitorul is not making any new points, is not able or make a rebuttal.
If I went back to make text green, so it is easier to read, it is edit history, not a comment.
Super Dromaeosaurus' name doesn't even show up 16 times in that AfD - it only shows up ten times, four of which are other editors (yourself included) referring to them. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Edit statistics for the AFD say that Willywilly1111 has added more than double (2.5x) the amount of text as the next highest contributor. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@MrOllie Buruitorul made 16 comments, and I made 16 comments. You can go and count. I had to respond to his false statements to the point of bringing the copy of the country's law. Edit statistic shows me making text green. He made the same amount of comments as I did. I want to be fair, and I am asking, why the same rules do not apply to him?
No, you didn't have to do anything. You should accept responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming others for them.
Your count is simply incorrect, he did not make the same amount of comments. Even if he had, that wouldn't excuse what you've been doing. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano What do you mean by by signature? I am counting my comment. Copy all the text and count how many comments I made. Let's be fair right- so lets count.
I said it already, that i went back to make edits, made my comments green so it is easier to read. Is that not allowed?
It is 16 distinct comments made my be. Same number of comments made Biruitorul and his friends. Comments with information that is factually wrong, like comments that contradict the law of the country.
It is bludgeoning for me, but what is he doing is not bludgeoning? He is allowed to continue bludgeoning that same AfD? You are supposed to know the rules, so I am asking, please, help make sense of this. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting that number or why you're fixating on minutiae, but on that afd you've written 22 comments and (as of writing) 40% of all text, greater than the next 3 editors combined. And as Star Mississippi noted, you're shooting yourself in the foot by pointing the finger at everybody else when it's your conduct that's in question here. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she)19:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
In addition, the average length of both of those users' edits are far shorter than yours, with most of them being one or two lines of text compared to your four or five. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM19:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Support in the hopes that disruption is isolated to this topic and wouldn't extend elsewhere and necessitate a block/ban. My prior interactions with Willywilly1111 were over some BLP disruption described in this now deleted section of their talk page, but I can easily chalk that up to a well intentioned newbie mistake. I have hope that edits outside the scope of the proposed TBAN would be constructive in light of that interaction, but it's obvious that they are not able to engage in this topic area constructively.
Yes, and you're allowed to do so. I'm actually trying to defend you here to a degree, since the behaviour you're exhibiting on this issue doesn't seem to be reflected in your conduct elsewhere from what I've seen. I think you could be a constructive editor here, just not regarding this topic area. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she)19:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I have further expanded Willy's page block to here in lieu of the below and responses after the final warning. Enough is enough. StarMississippi19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Is an uninvolved admin able to apply an indef or is that against policy considering this thread? It's now obvious that Willywilly1111 is going to keep litigating this on any page that they're able to edit and refuses to listen to what anyone else is saying considering the fact that they've restored their help desk post 3 times now despite clear objection. I think a temporary indef while this discussion plays out to prevent further disruption seems warranted. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she)20:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
which they're using to cast aspersions. I'm taking no further action. @Willywilly1111 please stop pinging me. Using the Help Desk to continue to litigate this argument does not show you can be a productive editor, in fact it is the complete opposite. You know how to request an unblock. Please do so if you wish but right now you're far closer to an indef without talk page access. StarMississippi21:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
In light of Star Mississippi expanding their partial blocks and their continued "I reject your reality and substitute my own" bludgeoning of both the AfD and this AN thread, I'm convinced that the topic-ban isn't going to help. I'm now proposing an indefinite block/siteban of Willywilly1111. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM18:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per my support of a tban above. The disruption on display is still in regards to the reason for the proposed TBAN, and I don't believe it will extend elsewhere once a TBAN is put in place. If this wasn't isolated to Răcăria and related discussions (such as here), then I'd support a broader sanction.ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she)19:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
With disappointment, striking my opposition in favor of weak support, as I'm now less confident that this will stop with a TBAN considering their adamance on continuing to bludgeon the discussion as shown by their reply to Biruitorul's (admittedly rather uncivil) response below.ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she)19:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano First of all, I want to make it clear, I do not care about these two editors. They are the ones insulting me,making factually incorrect statements.
What part am I not getting right? I considered the matter settled after the nomination was made. Instead, Biruitorul came back to this post and kept complaining here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Biruitorul-20260423180100-J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano-20260421231200
Or should we close the eyes for on this? I asked him to provide one secondary source for his claims, one source, and he failed and instead came here to complain that I am whining. His friends wrote that my source assessment is a lie. I asked, what source I got wrong, and Biruitorul wrote that I am whining.
Is there one admin who wants to say that this is "Last, more inchoate whining"?
If there are issues with Biruitorul's conduct, your behaviour has wildly overshadowed it and has made any other possible discussion on the matter nearly impossible. If you had simply concisely made your points once or twice and let other editors examine things from there, constructive conversations might have happened from all of this, including the article talk pages, the AfDs, etc, and this AN discussion might not have WP:BOOMERANGed. Digging through the battleground and walls of text (from you, not others) was exhausting enough that I still have been unable to get the details of the content dispute to determine a !vote, and even parsing the conduct dispute has proven difficult for the same reasons. This is why your bludgeoning has been so disruptive even before it became personal issues with other editors. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she)19:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
From what I could grok while pulling up the lists of AfD edits above, Biruitorul was far calmer and more consise at making arguments in favour of deleting/redirecting the article and didn't attempt to attack Willy on the AfD, sticking strictly to commenting on the article's content. I don't think Biruitorul's manner is at issue here, considering he made as many posts as he did because he was asking honest questions of Willy and getting squirreled in response. —Jéské Courianov^_^vMUSHROOM19:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Support — totally unsuitable temperament for the project. Rarely have I encountered someone here so impervious to calm reasoning, so willfully blind to constructive arguments, so fanatically entrenched in the pettiest disputes, so haughtily hostile, so monomaniacally clinging to his own baroque fantasies, so fixated on the most trivial minutiae, so breezily ready to twist and distort, so utterly unpleasant. — BiruitorulTalk19:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
This editor accused of whining- that is a pleasant tone.
I support to block Biruitorul too. He ignored Wikipedia rules 6 times, makes statement that are factually wrong, and has been bullying me, and insulting me. I never said that he was "whining" here. His friends tried to gaslight me, a new editor, claiming that census is not a primary source.
He is so fixated on the most trivial minutiae and cannot accept that he is wrong, and his conduct is wrong, and cannot make a one real argument that is not [i think so].
I would say this form of contact is even embarrassing for an account that is 10 years old. When someone who claims to edit wikipedia for 10 years is not being able to say what a primary sources is - that is actually embarrassing. I asked him for one secondary source to support his claims and he could not provide even one.
Partially blocked from practically everywhere we now have an AfC help desk post relitigating the matter. I'm probably too involved at this point; if I wasn't, I would just have pressed the block button now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Support. Ping me if you want an elaboration from my part. But I think there's nothing to say that hasn't been said three times over already. SuperΨDro20:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Involved support given the continued disruption and need to continue expanding page blocks given their unwillingness to hear feedback. StarMississippi20:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Support Regretfully, this is now my preference also. Yesterday was exhausting as I was pinged across pages to the point that I had to stop editing Wikipedia and do something else for a while - I only returned once things had calmed down. The fact that they're continuing to WP:FORUMSHOP tipped me over the edge. I was willing to withdraw my earlier support for a TBAN but something didn't feel right and I wanted to wait and see what happened. It turns out my instincts were correct. I'm happy to help editors who end up in a bad situation because of one or two misunderstandings, but I haven't been able to help many other people yesterday because if the amount of time I spent on this case. I'm sure that I'll receive a reply to this post challenging my decision, I may or may not reply as this is taking up a disproportionate amount of my time and I honestly need a break from this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Support While I still think that this editor had the potential to be a useful resource to improve the encyclopedia, they seem to have zero desire to participate in a collaborative project, have either have no willingness or no ability to try and understand how Wikipedia works, and is completely hostile at the slightest disagreement. An absurd number of people have tried to get this editor to slow down and try to get things back on track, but this editor has angrily pushed away anyone trying to reach out. This project as not for them, at least at this time. We've wasted enough of that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
While I'm not changing my Support I'm totally fine with this as a normal admin action. It does just as well in stopping the significant disruption, but if they someday change their approach and want to try this again properly, I don't think their conduct was so egregious that the community must review it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Support This has become very tiresome. Willy seems to be deaf and unyielding. Time to be shown the door.
Support: was getting tired of this person forum shopping after being given (what I would consider) reasonable advice from other editors and myself on talk, teahouse, and everywhere else before this, and was likely going to support a topic ban before reading this. After reading this, permablock is needed to stop the mass pinging and bludgeoning of everyone involved. Realtent (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Enough is enough. Willywilly1111 is now indefinitely blocked. I put down 'not here to help build an encyclopedia' as the shortest reason but really you could pick your poison. This is a normal admin action; if the community wants to formalize a ban then by all means, but either way, block has fallen. - The BushrangerOne ping only08:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for fixing double redirects in Gothic chess
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some abuse me
Latest comment: 3 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It can, there's a special version for mobile that I've got installed - I'll try to find it for you (unless someone else gets there first!) Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank(: that would be really helpful. I mostly edit from mobile so having Twinkle there would make things much easier. Dinesh Soi (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
I have some problems viewing some of the fields, for example the field where you enter linked pages is always blank for me. I can write in the field, I just can't see what I'm writing in there!
My phone is pretty old so I presume it's due to that, if it was a consistent problem I'd have thought it would have been brought up before now.
Yeah..i can see the TwinkleMobile option under the top-right icon now and I’ve started using it. Working fine so far! Really appreciate the help. EditorTimes (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk page protection
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it be possible to have my user talk page here protected (at least semi-protected)? If so, I'd like to request it. I have no plans to contribute to enWP again (in the highly unlikely case that I change my mind, I can just request unprotection), but I'm active (as a sysop) on en.wikt. Some editors from that site who - it appears - do not like that block evasion is not permitted (on here, there or basically any wiki I can think of) have decided to nest on my user talk page here. If not, is there a way to mute talk page notifications by project (the UI doesn't seem to allow this)? —SURJECTION/ T / C / L /19:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
(Non-Admin comment) Surjection, a TA editor on your talk page is advocating block evasion on wikitionary, so you might want to take note of that. I also think that ECR might be best, as some users you've blocked are autoconfirmed TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 20:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HELP - I screwed this up
Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Messed_up_my_sandbox_history for context. Basically, Paul W moved his entire sandbox to article space when he only wanted to move the draft that was the most recent handful of revisions. I have totally botched the history split. I think the problem is there are just too many revisions. I've managed to move some of the history back to his sandbox, but some of it is still attached to the article, and somewhere now there are overlapping revisions so I can't move any more. I'm getting media wiki errors, I'm getting all sorts of errors... I've made a mess of this. The pages in question are Bury F.C. financial crisis and User:Paul W/sandbox. Everything prior to today should be at the sandbox. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving15:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I think what you did wrong is that you tried to do a delete/selective undelete but didn't click "load more revisions" in the undelete form enough times. And then you tried to undelete more revisions but made the same mistake again, at which point it's not entirely clear what went wrong since the logs are kind of hard to follow. Anyway, when I saw it the 2012 and 2018-2026 revisions had been merged but not the 2012-2018 ones, and, with a little hackery (manually changing the URL parameters in the MergeHistory log page to show more than 500 revisions at once) I was able to do one complex merge to move the blob over. And then I did a delete/undelete to bury some remnant traces of your activity that didn't need to be in the history. * Pppery *it has begun...17:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Pppery Hi - I think I've done the same thing. My article Annuzza, a Girl of Romania has my sandbox history in it. It was moved to mainspace on 19 March, and contains some history for a different article. Also, my sandbox has a redirect on it & it would be nice to get it back. Thank you! Blackballnz (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
@Blackballnz: I've fixed the redirect for you; in the future all you need to do is delete the line which says #REDIRECT [[Annuzza, a Girl of Romania]] and that'll get rid of the redirect. Someone with admin tools will need to deal with the history merge/split stuff though I'm afraid. Cheers, Jack Frost (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Easy way to undo page moves
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some script to return a page to a certain state including page moves to restore sure would be nice. Izno (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most creative response to a block
Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think my mistake was assuming the sandbox draft was an AI generated promotional piece. I just looked at it again, and in the context of the editor's response to being blocked, I think the draft was a hoax written as a joke. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
To be fair, AI has been used rather liberally on their own website so that wouldn't be an unreasonable inference to make. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's almost never the best idea to delete a userpage if there is an alternative, in this case I've made it into a soft redirect to user:Miachab/sandbox where the content now lives. I also delcined the WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion nomination for that page, firstly A-series criteria only apply to pages in the article namespace not the user namespace. Secondly, A7 does not apply to content that makes credible claims of significance, even if that claim is not in English. Some non-English content in the article namespace meets criterion A2, but that doesn't apply here as (a) it isn't in the article namespace and (b) the article doesn't exist on the relevant-language Wikipedia (Spanish in this case). Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding standard enforcement provision reform
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.
Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions
All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.
Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:
ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.
Changing or revoking an enforcement action
An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[1] or is no longer an administrator;[2] or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:
a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:
the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
Standard provisions
A copy of the standard enforcement provision and appeals procedure will be included in the enforcement section of cases which include an enforceable remedy but do not include case-specific enforcement or appeal provisions.
Contentious topic restrictions, except site-wide blocks, imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be modified without a successful appeal (i.e. they do not become ordinary administrative actions after a year); and
Renewed page restrictions do not become ordinary admin actions until a year after they were last renewed.
For the avoidance of doubt, these changes apply to all Committee-issued restrictions—past, present, and future—without specified enforcement or enforcement action appeal procedures (including cases which used the prior standard provisions).
References
↑The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
↑This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
I think this user may be using LLM to "improve" and generate content. The speed at which they churned out articles in March and April 2026 is just too hard to dismiss (see their edit history); the average editor can't possibly produce this much high-quality content at such a rapid pace. For instance, in March 2026, they made a massive improvement on the Gigli article on March 21, just three days after having made another "major rewrite" of another article, March 18, 2026. The latter article got reverted by another editor for having "too many broken or malformed references" which, to me, looks to be AI-generated due to the naming scheme of the repeated refs (e.g., "BTG-CheapFlights-2012"). In April, user made a "Major overhaul for FA-readiness" of the Heartstopper (TV series) article on April 2, which was followed by an expansion of List of Heartstopper episodes for a potential WP:FLCon April 10. User's other content may have to be checked for signs of AI writing. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
It is a major drain on the community's time to clear the spam they regularly add (we have limited volunteers). I propose entacting a community ban as per WP:3X, particularly on encyclopediagurus.com, as they have violated the pledge made to @SSpalding (WMF): of Wikimedia Foundation here. They have also farmed a lot of accounts to influence AfDs, which is a serious violation. Community has tolerated them but the tolerance is not infinite. Thanks, ~2026-25366-06 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi @~2026-25366-06, 3X is a ban that's applied to individual accounts after they've been found to be sockpuppeting by Checkuser on three occasions (not strictly the same as a WP:CBAN. I'm not finding any editors with the names EncyclopediaGurus, Reputation Stars, or Submit Express so I presume these are websites.
Similarly, the accounts you have named haven't edited for several years.
The accounts brought up at SPI are blocked as soon as they're confirmed to be linked to the master.
Can you please confirm exactly what you're asking administrators to do? Are you wanting the accounts detected at the SPI to be CBANNED on top of the existing blocks? There are so many socks that they're essentially 3X banned already, even though it's not in the notice panel.
That discussion was six years ago & presented a list of live articles that were created by the paid editing company for the community to consider, but we don't have that here. I also note that quite a few people raised concerns that it was pretty much pointless.
For this to work, individual paid editors would have to openly declare the company they are working for, which is so rare that I don't recall seeing it happen recently.
If the issue is that they're editing as UPE's (undeclared), then banning their employer will do diddly-squat because we don't know who's working for them. I don't know of any way to weed out any articles they've created which haven't been deleted as UPE?
Either way, CBANNING the companies will serve no practical effect and I'm afraid it would just waste everyone's time. If you can present a list of live articles & evidence in the same manner as the original RFC then I'd be happy to reconsider. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Etcnoel1 was banned by a checkuser due to sock/meat puppetry after being blocked for violating a topic ban. I now post their request to be unblocked, and also follow on statements they made; I do this as a courtesy and make no endorsement in doing so. A checkuser will need to look at this as well. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello, it has been exactly 6 months today since I was blocked on English Wikipedia (WP:OFFER). Today is 4/21/26, the exact date that I was given until I could make any edits on here again. I’m requesting to be unblocked because I believe that I am capable of handling English Wikipedia now, and I’m willing to do better. I have learnt from my mistakes, and gained a little more experience by editing on Simple English Wikipedia in the meantime. I hope you guys are ready to accept my request and have me back on English Wikipedia, thank you.Etcnoel1 (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I’m willing to abide by a topic ban if that’s the necessary thing for you to do. I’ve come to understand that If a Wikipedia page is dedicated to anything that relates to my topic ban, I must avoid that page. So if a certain page has a CT notice related to my topic ban, I avoid editing that page completely. In short, any page dedicated to my topic ban must be avoided. Etcnoel1 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
I’d like to add that even if a page is dedicated to a different topic, I shall still avoid editing a paragraph if it so much as mentions anything regarding my topic ban. Etcnoel1 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm concerned by the past history of recidivism, claiming they've gotten the message and then immediately demonstrating that no, they have not. Reviewing their user talk page and contributions history on simple.wiki, I'm not in the slightest bit reassured. signed, Rosguilltalk14:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Weak Support - I've been burned by this before, but I'm a believer in extending some rope, when the possibility exists. The topic bans are an absolute must of course, and the rope should already be taut. What's keeping me from a stronger endorsement is I really wish Etcnoel1 had followed the advice to stay away from the banned topics on Simple English, even if they were allowed to make those edits over there. Etcnoel1, if you're unblocked, please note that these topic restrictions are broadly construed, and you ought to approach edits after an unblocked with the mindset that in the context of English Wikipedia, Central Asia doesn't even exist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - In addition to the recent TA socking in February, they were found to be a sock of Assyrian.crusader.
Aside from this, the Talk page at Simple doesn't show a clean history of productive editing over the past six months, with different editors raising concerns over:
Moving articles inappropriately after being warned
NPOV/cherry-picking sources
Edit warring .
They were blocked for violating a topic ban on WP:GS/KURD only one day after accepting it, so have already had WP:ROPE extended to them.
As part of the Standard offer, it was recommended (and they agreed) to stay away from Kurdish topics at Simple, yet their edit history shows they are still editing Kurdish topics such as Assyrian genocide and Soran campaign against Assyrians.
In isolation I'd probably have supported, but taking the above factors together I'm unfortunately unable to support a proposal to unblock at this time. I'd be happy to reconsider if they weren't a few months without problems and (ideally) avoiding the topics as they originally agreed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
I think they should have a clean record at Simple for at least six months, their last warning was 24 February so that would mean appealing no earlier than 24 August 2025. Maybe I'm being too generous but for me that's the minimum.
I'd also really want them to focus on subjects outside the TBAN here, so we can understand how well they would be able to adhere to said TBAN & see their ability to edit unrelated topics. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
After discussing further below, I'd be more comfortable with a minimum of six continuous months abstaining from the topic and maintaining a clean editing history - that would take us to October 2026.
The advantage of this proposal is that it would demonstrate an ability to adhere to the topic ban and also edit productively long-term, since we don't currently have evidence of either. This is basically a modified Standard offer with extra off-en.wiki requirements. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Opppose. I could have looked over the fact that they stayed in the WP:GS/KURD topic area over there if their behavior is unproblematic (them getting a ONESTRIKE block is their problem; although it is a bad look). It isn't unproblematic though. Between edit warring two seperate times, not getting their moves right, and a poor understanding of consensus models, I do not believe they are ready for getting unblocked any time soon. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Strong support. Etcnoel1 seems to understand the reason for their ban, and from a quick check on their talk page on simple Wikipedia, seems to have developed an understanding of edit warring. Their willingness to abide by a topic ban makes me even more inclined to support an unban. Additionally, many of the supposed "socks" were found to have belonged to an unrelated user @Jsanihsjsn who was unblocked a few months ago. PokémonPerson16:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for the next 9 months. We're under very strict observation by our critics. We need to keep our cupboards clean. Willing to reconsider after January 2027. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: to my understanding, the topic bans are set whether this unblock is accepted or not; I set those topic bans as a conditional of their first unblock. They were at that time "willing" to accept the tbans, but nevertheless violated them immediately. If they're still having trouble on simple-wiki I don't have much hope for here, either. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Their Simple Wikipedia talk page is filled with notices and warnings. They were also reported at that project's AN, which for me is an automatic disqualifier. The comments from multiple editors here are extremely damning unfortunately. I don't think they should be allowed to return to editing on the English Wikipedia, even with a TBAN in place. 11WB (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
To be fair the Simple AN report was malformed, it asked for ONESTRIKE warnings yet there were no concerns noted at the time of the post - I don't think that should be counted against them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering responded at that thread and made note that they weren't aware that WP:TAGTEAMing (a type of WP:MEATPUPPETRY) was not allowed. That's exactly what they were already doing. Downplaying meatpuppetry is not something I'm going to do, so that AN should absolutely be counted against them. That's not the type of behaviour we want on Wikipedia anywhere. 11WB (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I was going off Asilvering's comments that "I can't say I'm impressed with a filing that basically says "these guys are blocked on another edition", though" and "You have not provided any evidence of socking, meatpuppetry, or topic bans here, just the ones on en-wiki."
A Simple admin (Lee Vilenski) found that there were no concerns at the time, concluding that "If we do see any disruptive behaviour, I'm sure we will take action, but I've not seen anything yet that warrants it."
That's why I feel that we shouldn't count that specific AN report against them, since it was not based on any misbehaviour on Simple at the time of the report.
There were definitely issues at Simple that began to arise a day or two later, but it would be unfair to count that particular AN against them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree that the simple fact of having been taken to AN on frivolous grounds is not an issue, but that their response claiming ignorance of tag-teaming being inappropriate, when they have already been repeatedly investigated and blocked for sockpuppetry, is an issue and stretches past the limits of assuming good faith in my view, particularly given the degree of problematic sockpuppetry and tag-teaming in ACAS on en.wiki. signed, Rosguilltalk15:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree with you @Rosguill. I am surprised by the pushback from @Blue Sonnet on the AN point. In the larger picture, the editor who opened that thread basically foresaw the future, as problems occurred not long after. 11WB (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
That was my understanding, but I genuinely didn't know the answer. Thank you for clarifying. I'll note this for future reference. 11WB (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I didn't clock that the AN report was proof against their claim of ignorance - it wasn't mentioned in your first post but was on your second, that's where my focus went & it didn't shift back to your newer comment. I apologise for any confusion that I've caused by missing that point. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I did make that initial comment quite late, so I was probably a bit tired and it didn't come out as concise as I usually try to aim for. That's on me. I will add, after viewing the editor's talk page on the English Wikipedia, I am quite overwhelmed by the number of blocks and unblock requests that have been posted. It took quite a bit of scrolling to even reach @Rosguill's block from just under a year ago. I think that the opportunity for giving this editor rope has long passed. 11WB (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I've had two hours sleep in as many days so I'm definitely to blame since you made it clear before I went off on one!
I also think they've had enough rope from us, they need to weave their own rope at Simple out of good, strong editing material.
I think six months without blemishes (warnings) is fair - IMO it doesn't have to start now, just from their last warning on 24 February . Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure I can support that. There are other editors with lesser violations who have been rejected at appeal after longer periods. This editor has serious SPI violations both on here and other projects. I think a minimum of 24 months would be a good starting point for serious consideration. Anything before that will still be too fresh in editor's minds. 11WB (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll admit I'm being very generous with this - six months is the absolute minimum I'd want to see from them.
They'd have to be excellent edits and not involve anything related to the topic ban at all.
Any valid warning would restart the timer, so it wouldn't be a simple "come back in August" situation. For someone who has problems with edit warring etc. this won't be an easy ride.
I get why others wouldn't be comfortable with this proposal though, there's a lot of problematic history to consider.
Thinking about it some more, it would be entirely reasonable to ask them to stay away from the subject of their topic bans for six continuous months to prove that they can stick to the same restriction here, this would take them to October 2026. I see someone else suggested January 2027, which is roughly similar (nine months).
Two years is a bit too long for me to support, but that's entirely my personal opinion and I understand why others wouldn't agree with it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I've not been topic banned during my short tenure. I do wonder but also kind of understand why it's so difficult to stick to a TBAN. If I were to be topic banned from video games, that would be quite hard. If somebody brought up video games in a discussion I was apart of on a talk page suddenly, I would be prohibited from replying. That being said, there are countless other things to do Wikipedia. 11WB (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Especially if it's one day later! They've not really edited any other subjects on Simple so I do worry about their ability to stick to a topic ban long term; I ended up going with my longer proposal above now I've thought about it some more, since we've got a lot of "saying" but not much "doing". I'll try to leave this thread alone for a while so I'm not inadvertently bludgeoning it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
After seeing that talk page, I don't think any new rope should be given, rather they must create some themself. All the rope that's been given has been used to make a noose. Now it's their decision to put on the noose at the gallows, or save themself by reforming. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. While I see I declined an unblock request in the past, I don't recall any specifics or history with this editor and may have just been patrolling the queue that day. So unfortunately I don't have anything to add to the discussion that hasn't been said. If unblocked, they should be very cautious in their editing. StarMississippi01:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks, @Voorts:. I should've released that ticket. I have done so. I will not be handling their unblock request. I have never been able to reach them through the years. Perhaps a fresh admin without a past history with this user will do better. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User is following me.
Latest comment: 3 months ago39 comments8 people in discussion
There is consensus that Jbrill05 now understands the Hounding in their editing behavior. They agreed voluntarily to avoid all and any interaction with Omnis Scientia and/or OS’s edits. Jbrill05 has also been warned that any continuation of this behavior can result in an IBAN. — CactusWriter (talk)20:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jbrill05 has been following me around articles I have been editing related to Titanic. Initially, I assumed they were being friendly but there is a clear pattern of them showing up soon after I edit a page to evaluate my edits and works. I have informed @DrKay who told them to stop, and I myself have asked multiple times on their talk page. I can't assume good faith any longer with them because they show up to tell me what I am doing right or wrong in talk pages of the articles I am editing and now my own talk page. I feel extremely uncomfortable and harrassed with this constant nitpicking of my work and WP:HOUNDING. They say otherwise but I just can't be a coincidence when it has happened more than a few times.
Now they have copied an article I created, George Bowyer (pilot) into their sandbox, claiming they need to verify the information I have added when they never showed interest in the article before I added said information today to expand it. This is the third or fourth article I have edited which they have followed me to. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
And while they have stopped spam thanking every edit I did to any Titanic articles, they had been doing that too which is where my suspiscion first arose that they might be following me from page to page. That and when I changed something they were "confused" by they'd ping me into a talk page to ask me why I did what I did when they seemingly were never there before that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: This is probably more appropriate for WP:AN/I to be frank. Talk:Sinking of the Titanic shows that the accused has indeed been WP:HOUNDING @OS, and accuses @OS of "pulling rank" when they are asked to stop. This is not becoming behaviour of any editor. I'll also add as a note for @Jbrill05, no editor is "above" another, not even administrators (see WP:ADMINACCT and WP:RECALL). We are all equal on this project. You've been asked to stop engaging with @OS, it would be in your best interest to listen and focus your efforts elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I really do appreciate it. I just have a lot of issues regarding the ambiguity of "stop engaging". Surely it can't mean to never edit any page Omnis has ever edited. I am having trouble finding that fine line, and would appreciate help with that.
If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate clarity on why you think I may not be competent. I am trying to show my ability to be reasonable; it is just that things have yet to be made clear enough for me. My intention with that comment was for clarity, not to be flippant, or to troll, or to stir the pot. I apologise if you interpreted that way. Perhaps I could have used a different word choice? Thank you again. Jbrill05 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll be as clear as possible for you: Do not interact with, speak to or acknowledge @OS' existence. We have something called a topic ban on the project. You would essentially follow the same rules laid out on that page, but in relation to @OS. 11WB (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
@OS will obviously see these replies. They are welcome to correct me, however I believe they want a total disconnect from yourself. 11WB (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Excuse me for acknowledging the user, as I have one more question. Would this prevent me from editing Titanic-related articles that the user had edited before, regardless of the number of edits or how long it is been? From my perspective, it seems editing an article they had edited prior (perhaps with recency of their edits playing a role) was something they also found problematic, even if I was not directly interacting with them. I do not wish to cause them any more harm, and it really is affecting me knowing I hurt someone, especially considering how the prior lack of specificity contributed to it. Thank you again for being so helpful! Jbrill05 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
@11WB, thank you. Yes I am following. I rather wish I could believe their word. But they have said this same "I don't understand" thing again and again, and I can't trust they will stick to it. They keep claiming they don't want to "harm" me but their replies to my requests to stop are patronizing, as if I need to be checked up on, and their "solution" is that they continue being allowed to do this.
As I was writing this they posted a reply, using that same sort of language yet again. The fact is I've actually teared up trying to navigate this over the past few days, to the point I had to bring it here. I feel I'm walking on eggshells whenever I want to add something more because I know they will somehow end up there too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I apologise for the perceived condescending tone and sealioning. I truly did not mean to be condescending or to sealion. I have had issues with tone in my past. Is this enough to be considered incompetent? I understand the boundary now, and plan on respecting it. However, the question about me editing Titanic-related pages, as well as questions relating to why my edits on the Hugh McElroy page were reverted, remain unanswered. This is not Sealioning, as no one has attempted to answer these questions, beyond saying that my edit was "unhelpful" and "nitpicking" despite my justification for it, which has yet to have been addressed beyond repetition of the "unhelpful" and "nitpicking" claims. Jbrill05 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Continuing to fire back questions regarding the semantics of what is a very simple request, to stop following @OS, is sealioning and yes, shows that you are incapable of listening. At the risk of not sounding WP:BITEy, you really need to focus your efforts elsewhere. You have caused @OS to become upset, which itself is not good, but this is beginning to enter WP:IDHT territory. 11WB (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
I am not asking questions regarding the simple request not to interact or acknowledge the user. The part is very clear to me. My lingering question is about my ability to edit Titanic-related pages, which I don't believe has been addressed. The last thing I want is to hurt the user more, and I would like a clear boundary to be set there. I fear that without one, I could cause more unintentional harm. That is why I keep asking about it. Thank you. Jbrill05 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
It's an irrelevant point. This isn't about your ability to edit specific articles, it's about you following a specific editor and your failure to stop when asked (multiple times). 11WB (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
@11WB, that's absolutely not irrelevant, especially if you're proposing an interaction ban. @Jbrill05, please see WP:IBAN. If you're banned from interacting with Omnis Scientia, you can still edit Titanic-related pages, but you cannot undo any of their edits. Since you also cannot comment on the editor you're banned from interacting with, directly or indirectly, it's complicated to edit the same articles even if you aren't directly undoing something they've done. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
I read it as broad, so I don't consider it relevant as it affects everything not just one specific topic. Thank you for the clarification however. An interaction ban is still necessary here. 11WB (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
I answered that question. Adding unnecessary links and citation tags is not helpful, especially when you were told otherwise to stop adding what I felt was unjustified "Citation needed" and "failed verification" tags when I had just rewritten the source info in my own words. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
In fact I feel I've went out of my way to not just explain why I did something but also to meet your demands by adding additional sources. In talk pages and edit summaries. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Support IBAN: For the benefit of any reviewing admins. A clear case of WP:SEALIONing, WP:HOUNDING and WP:IDHT behaviour has been displayed here and at the following pages:
Support IBAN for @Jbrill05 - Normally I don't reply on the Administrator Noticeboard but I am attempting to try to reply here more. While reviewing what happened, I say this is needed. I support an interaction ban to keep them from bothering @OS.(Non-administrator comment)
I will also support an IBAN being formalized, but I don't think sealioning applies here (not based on this AN conversation anyway). They were asking one question and it straight up just was not getting answered; they could definitely make shorter responses, but that's not sealioning, that's just WP:WALLOFTEXT. Tessaract2(hello)13:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
I was asked unsubscribe from this and another convo and I forgot from here at least. I will do so after I answer this question. The question they asked was answered numerous times. They can claim it wasn't but I know I answered it. On the article's talk page and in the edit summaries, and also here, yet again. And this is just one example; they've done this in other places.
In any case, I wanted to have my say on the "their question isn't being answered" to make sure there isn't any confusion. I will unfollow this AN unless and until there is a need for me to be here as asilvering asked me to in a seperate conversation. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I'd just like to remind the editors !voting that an iban is a really onerous, difficult sanction, one we should, in my opinion, avoid handing out if there is any reasonable alternative whatsoever. Jbrill05 appears to have been confused about the nature of collaboration on this project, which is normal for a newcomer. (Obviously, their behaviour resulting from that confusion has not been normal.) I like to think I've gotten through; I may not have, but if I have, there's nothing left that we need to do here, beyond deleting the sandbox. -- asilvering (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
I have considered this. The multiple talk page discussions, regardless of the sandbox which I actually didn't take into consideration yesterday, shows a repetition of hounding in a short period. The repeated questioning to clarify things did come across as sealioning and disruptive. I would be willing to strike out my support for an IBAN, provided they actually apologise to @OS, which so far they have failed to do. An apology can indeed go a long way. 11WB (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose sanctions - There's been a lengthy discussion on their Talk page, which they seem to have understood. For now I'm hopeful that this has been nipped in the bud.
@Jbrill05 - for everyone's sake (including yours), if you see a recent edit by OS in the edit history, close the page and work on something else. If the edit was a day or more ago, check to see what they did and make sure your change doesn't affect theirs. Even if you don't have an official IBAN, make sure to act like there is one. If you can do this, then I'm sure that trust can be rebuilt over time.
Even if you didn't intend to hound OS (it might not be possible to tell clear intent in this case), it had the same effect - with that in mind, we need to do whatever we can to acknowledge that & show good faith in the future.
If you have to take a few extra steps to reassure a fellow editor and keep yourself out of trouble, then definitely take those steps. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet I really appreciate your input. I have been working on a couple of articles extensively that had missing citations and other issues that OS is not actively working on (at least not publicly), but they had worked on before (months ago), so I was really hoping that I would be able to publish updates to these articles to improve them. More importantly, though, I am deeply ashamed of my actions. I am new here, but that is no excuse. I have always struggled with social interactions and understanding boundaries when they are not perfectly concrete. I have brought this up with my therapist, and they thought I was engaging in overly literal thinking, and, whether intentionally or not, wrote with a tone that is likely to be perceived as condescending or even sarcastic. I was too focused on being accurate with the facts and blatantly ignored the social aspects of a collaborative volunteering project.
I want to assure everyone that I have not used intentional sarcasm or negative tone, and the areas are ones I have consistently struggled with, but have been working on. That is enough about me; regardless of the intentions or circumstances of my actions, the result is clear. I caused a very active editor who has contributed for years to feel harassed and stalked, and nobody on this website deserves that. It is hard for me to handle the thought that I caused this severe level of discomfort and anxiety in someone, and I am sure it doesn't even compare with how they are feeling. I hope the genuineness of this response is felt, and it doesn't come off as sarcastic or condescending, because I meant every word I said in the reply. I beg for leniency, as the effect of my actions had not been clear through what I perceived as ambiguity, even if it felt clear to others. I really hope that I can continue to contribute, in a healthier way, in the areas I have researched for years, but I will respect the final decision no matter what. Most sincerely, Jbrill05 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
@11WB @SuperJames888 @Tessaract2 - What do you think? Would you be happy to review your decision based on the above?
I'm hopeful we can put this down to a misunderstanding without having to bother admins with complex IBAN's.
Obviously if it continued (and I don't think it will), OS has been given the go-ahead to contact specific named admins for support. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
BTW I'm not 100% sure of the need for an apology, OS didn't appear to want any further contact and has unsubscribed from all discussions about this subject - they seem to just want to move on from this, as I'm sure Jbrill05 wants also. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
They didn't explicitly apologise, but it is probably acceptable. They know that if they continue an IBAN becomes a real possibility. 11WB (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll withdraw my support for an IBAN at this time. I check AN and AN/I semi-frequently, so if their username shows up again here, I'll know that I've been "burned" as it were by doing so. 11WB (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
They mentioned this to their therapist? Clear focus on self-improvement, a sanction would be punitive now. I'll gladly oppose the IBAN, thanks for pinging me Sonnet! Tessaract2(hello)21:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
This can probably be closed as both @OS and @Jbrill05 seem to have reached a mutual disengagement. Kudos to @Blue Sonnet and @Asilvering for their successful intervention. 11WB (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Howto merge the old and new versions of an article?
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
How do I merge Draft:M. Liju and M. Liju. I'm trying Special:MergeHistory, but get the error: This history merge operation cannot be performed because it would result in parallel histories (revisions of the source page and the destination page being mixed together).
The usual cause of this error is that the destination page was a redirect before it was overwritten with a cut-paste, in which case you need to clear away the redirect before going forward with the merge. Otherwise, please make sure you have selected the correct set of revisions to merge and try again.
If you really really know what you are doing and want to combine overlapping chunks of revisions (even though it will result in diffs comparing two unrelated versions for example), then you can do it by doing multiple merges each of smaller chunks. But you almost certainly shouldn't." Rjjiii (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I undid a breaking edit to a userbox by User:Astra.L that I noticed on my watchlist, then left a message on the their talk page, then did a couple more reverts (one, two). During this process, I realized that the issues in the userbox edits of this editor are more widespread. On 21 April, User:Suntoooothreverted some breakage too.
The nature of the breaking edits is removal of existing parameters for userbox customization, removal of documentation, and removal of categorization:
these 47 edits of userboxes in the User and Wikipedia namespace, some already reverted
I don't have a solid opinion on whether a mass rollback would be appropriate, especially since I'm involved, but the breaking edits are, at the very least, annoying. If it was just visual changes it'd be one thing, but breaking changes (such as the edit to {{User Birthday}}) are another. (Figured I'd say something since I was pinged.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk|contribs) 23:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@Andrybak I reverted the few that weren't already reverted. I think changing the entire design of long existing userboxes that are used a few times is enough to revert, but some of the edits also entirely changed the meaning of the userbox. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I would support all the reversions; the edits are just disruptive at this point. Interesting that they haven't interacted with any of their talk page warnings, but that's a little irrelevant. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 04:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I was just pinged to this user's talk. They are under indef page creation block. Apparently they think they're under a sitewide one, and seem to be referring to the Maoririder user account which they say is theirs; that is indeed under an ArbCom block since 2006. Obviously I've no way of verifying whether those accounts belong to the same user, but I can't see why they would lie so will assume it's true. What should be done with this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Okay, I've no problem blocking them, just didn't want to do so based solely on what they say on their talk page, without at least getting a second opinion.
If they want to appeal at some point, are they allowed to do so from the BigKrow account, or are we going to insist they go back to the Maoririder one last used 20 years ago? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago47 comments18 people in discussion
NOT LIFTED
There is clear consensus here against the lifting of the topic ban and no chance more time will change that. I am not waiting longer to close this as the editor has indicated their desire to withdraw the appeal and potentially retire. StarMississippi01:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ShaanSengupta(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·pagemoves·blockuser·blocklog)
Hello everyone, I am here to request a review of my TBan (WP:ARBIPA). I would start by providing some convenience links along with explanations for the background to anyone who doesn't know my case. 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC) is the first time this account was blocked (see the relevant SPI). Unlike previously, I immediately accepted that I was in the wrong. I was asked to take the standard offer and come back after six months. I complied with it and applied for unblock after six months which was declined as a vague and general apology to inadequately address the extensive sockpuppetry and POV-pushing. This thread is where the unblock conditions and the TBan proposal came. I accepted it made the 2nd unblock request which was accepted and certain conditions (indefinite topic ban from all edits covered by WP:ARBIPA, appealable to the community via WP:AN after nine months and, if unsuccessful, every six months thereafter) were applied. Things were going smooth, but then came unintentional TBan violations. Then came some more and I was blocked again, this time for violation of unblock conditions (i.e. TBan). I explained myself and made an unblock request which was declined and I was asked to wait for 6 months and then come back. I did so and applied for unblock which was accepted by the blocking admin. This time, from then till now, I am happy to say that there have been no violations from my side. One instance happened that was a result of a filemove on Commons where I forgot to opt out of the COM:GR script. Note that I didn't manually edit any page covered by the ban. I immediately reverted myself upon realisation and notified it to both the concerned admins on their talk page, see this and this. Now, I would request the community to revisit my TBan and, if not remove then atleast, ease the sanctions. English Wikipedia is the place where I started and I really want to come back. That being said, I would also note that I have been contributing to Wikimedia Commons (see my account there) where I am a Filemover, Image reviewer, Rollbacker and Temporary account IP viewer alongwith 25k+ edits. And TBH, I am proud of my work there. As far as enwiki is concerned, I have contributed in whatever capacity I could. The scale has been very low, because I am not allowed to edit pages which I have knowledge of. If given a chance, I would start with adding missing images to the articles, the images that I have uploaded on Commons which are INUSE across projects but not here. I don't want to rush my way back here if it is not ok with the community. But currently I am helpless. I would also quote Toddy1 who suggested a way to achieve the aim of the topic ban in a different way. What about a six or nine month trial period, with a pblock from article space, and a narrow topic ban. Note that issues regarding my editing was highlighted only related to India and Bangladesh(limited only to Bangladesh genocide), but the WP:ARBIPA TBan is way broad. Pings to everyone involved. @Yamla, @Voorts, @331dot, @Toddy1, @Ratnahastin, @DreamRimmer, @Rosguill, @Malerisch. Also, I wrote a big request but before I could post it, my battery died and I lost it all. So incase I have missed something, please let me know and I will happily address it. Also, I live in UTC+05:30 and my responses will be according to that timezone. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk13:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
I would also request everyone to kindly apply (Article) filter in my contributions to see my contributions after I was blocked this ban was placed. As I said, I have edited in whatever capacity I could, mainly articles related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and US/Israel-Iran conflict. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk14:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - I do not see any worthwhile contributions from this user on EN-Wiki that proves to me that this user will be able to edit the contentious topic area they were banned from. I need a more thorough track record to gauge their ability to edit in this area without causing issues. Zalaraz (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Zalaraz, thank you for your input, I would request you to, if not yet then, kindly apply (Article) filter in my contributions bcoz the recent ones are Filemoves and talk page archives. That would better show my contributions as I stated moments ago above. Also, the block was not bcoz of the flagged issues with my editing but for socking, those issues came when I applied for unblock. Shaan SenguptaTalk14:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Neutral - I agree that there hasn't really been much activity on en.wiki since the unblock that demonstrates that they're ready to jump back into South Asian topics. While they appear to have made just over 500 edits since being unblocked (to measure this against a normal new editors' trajectory to XC and editing the topic), nearly half of those edits are clerking talk page discussions related to the Iran war, which doesn't send a super strong signal about their ability to contribute constructively. signed, Rosguilltalk15:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Shaan Sengupta has significantly edited Wiki commons throughout this period. However, his edits there are only reflecting the same problematic editing that got him sanctioned here. Take a look at his latest upload there which he named as "Prime Minister of Bharat". There is no country called "Bharat". It is nothing more than a misleading Hindu nationalist POV, but Shaan Sengupta is promoting that. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact)16:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
I would like to come clear on this. People may very well think that this is a "Hindu nationalist POV" but the Article 1 of the Constitution of India itself mentions "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States". So I don't see how can someone justify that there is no country called Bharat or how this is a Hindu nationalist POV. Indian constitution wasn't created by Hindu nationalists. The cited source itself acknowledges that the word "Bharat" is the name of the country in many Indian languages. Just like we have Deutschland/Germany, Cymru/Wales, Türkiye/Turkey. Bharat/India is exactly the same. Bharat is the name of the country in local language and Commons is a multilingual project. Shaan SenguptaTalk16:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
The name is India, whereas Bharat is a secondary local name. Calling it "Bharat" outside Indian sphere aligns with Hindu nationalist ideology. See the link provided by ZDRX.
The comparison of this case with "Türkiye" is equally misleading and I find it problematic that you would defend it this way. It only makes it clearer that you are not ready to edit the said area yet. Zalaraz (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
So India's official name is Bhārat Gaṇarājya, and yet that is somehow nationalist? The implication that it is somehow only nationalist when said by someone who isn't Indian only makes that accusation worse. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Official name is "Republic of India", used internationally, while "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is a local name. Whenever you see "Bharat" being pushed over "India" such as in this case where English Commons was the platform, consider it to be a Hindu nationalist POV. Even on English Wiki, Bharat does not redirect to India. See Talk:Bharat#Requested_move_2_May_2021 for the reasons why.
Also, take a look at Shaan Sengupta's user page on Commons. has quotations of well known figures that have been modified to spell "India" as "Bharat". THEZDRX(User) | (Contact)17:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Commons is a multilingual project, there is no "English Commons". And no, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is not a "local" name; I assume you meant non-English, but even then it's not true that Bharat is only the non-English version. "India, that is Bharat", is how the English version of the Indian constitution opens (see for a short background on how it came to be). Your bizzare accusations amount to casting aspersions and battleground behaviour. TryKid[dubious – discuss]17:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
It is nonsensical to mention that Wiki Commons is multilingual when Shan Sengupta is uploading all of the images in English. It is a fact that "Bharat" is pushed over "India" only by Hindu nationalists whenever "India" is the only applicable name. I have already proven that by providing this link. You can find more. Your baseless accusations cannot change it but only reveals your own conduct issues. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact)17:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Bharat does not redirect to India, yes. Because it's a disambiguation page, and Bharat as the native-languages (multiple native languages, per the dab page) name of India is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on the English Wikipedia. Per Names of India: Bharat is a coequal name of India, as set down in Article 1 of the Constitution, adopted in 1950, which states in English: "India, that is Bharat, .... You've provided a link that states it is used by Hindu nationalists, perhaps, but that does not establish that it is only used by Hindu nationalists. If you don't want people to see "Bharat" as synomomous with "India" you need to have India change its constitution. - The BushrangerOne ping only02:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
You have confirmed that Bharat does not redirect to India because it is not a primary topic. I have provided reliable sources for my point that Hindu nationalists push "Bharat" over "India" where only India is applicable. This is reflected in the uploads done by Shan Sengupta where "India" was appropriate, not Bharat. Your comment does not adddress that. Yes people are allowed to follow country's constitution, court rulings, and more, but on Wikimedia projects they will have to abide by the accepted standards. Shaan Sengupta breaching the same standards since years to present times is absolutely unacceptable. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact)03:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
And which Wikimedia Commons rule states that I can't use Bharat on my userpage or in the filename? This is moving goalpost. More like no matter what, no matter how many counter argument you give, I'll still oppose. This is not a political battleground but I now feel like this is more of a oppose because of the political views we share. My political leaning was flagged that I openly identify myself as a BJP supporter and that some of my edits reflect that POV. But we are ok with another user openly identifying as a Congress and DMK (who have deep ideological divide to that of the BJP) and opposing based on that. I don't know whether ZDRX's edits have been flagged as reflecting their political leaning but this debate sure does. By no means am I discrediting or attacking ZDRX's contributions, just saying what I feel by the arguments. Shaan SenguptaTalk04:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Problem is with not what you think but how you are editing. Don't look for excuses for evading the issues with your editing. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact)04:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
ZDRX highlighted two things, both of which have been debunked. 1st, There is no country called "Bharat" and 2nd, It is nothing more than a misleading Hindu nationalist POV. Wrong. The Indian constitution describes the country as India, that is Bharat, and Bhārat Gaṇarājya is the official name enshrined in the constitution. So Bharat exists. Yes, we can find 100s of sources describing that Bharat is being pushed over India in some or the other way by the current government (which is described as a Hindu nationalist government). But that doesn't limit the usage of Bharat exclusively to Hindu nationalists. The name wasn't invented by Hindu nationalists but is a historical name enshrined in the constitution (which again wasn't created by Hindu nationalists) as well as the name in most of the Indian languages, though versions differ but the base is same. Whether the spelling is Bharat or Bharath. BTW, Bharat or India are not the only names of the country, there is Hindustan (also spelled as Hindusthan in Sanskrit). Period. Shaan SenguptaTalk02:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Can you show any user uploading "Prime minister of Bharat" on Commons apart from yourself? Your argument that both names are coequal is particularly disingenuous when your actions are in the exact opposite, that is promoting one name over other, especially since term "Bharat" is not only less common but also has acquired a Hindu Nationalist connotation in its promotion in recent times. The neologism "Republic of Bharat" that you display on your userpage just soldifies what I said. Zalaraz (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion, and I am not involved in this review in any way; however, there certainly is a country called "Bharat". It is literally an endonym for India. Calling the country by (one of) its native names doesn't automatically make one a "Hindu nationalist", and this is a borderline ludicrous take. Yes, preferential use of Bharat over India in this context is questionable, and yes, lately Hindu nationalists have indeed been using "Bharat" more frequently than before for signaling their position. However, "Bharat" is a notoriously common name for India, and over-generalizing its use the way you have done (and are doing) comes across as unnecessarily shallow. Within this context, "India" is certainly more suited; however, "Bharat" is a coequal name for the country and has absolutely zero direct connections with Hindu nationalism, and calling the country by that name outside Indian sphere does NOT, in fact, by default align with Hindu nationalist ideology. You're throwing the word around. Dissoxciate(talk)00:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Your last 250 articlespace edits go back 17 months, and most of them are gnoming. I'd like to see a far more consistent level of contribution before I'd think of allowing you back into a CTOP. Black Kite (talk)18:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Considering the socking & TBAN recidivism, I feel we need a longer edit history to make a full and fair assessment - 250 relatively small edits isn't really enough. As a very rough suggestion I'd like to see at least 500 edit with more substantial work overall. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too harsh, but considering the nature of his prior issues and a request to go back into a problematic CTOP area, I feel that the bar needs to be set a little higher in this case. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I can see that the opposes are for lack of contributions. I described the reason for that above, little knowledge about topics about the Indian subcontinent. Therefore I would ask the participants to please also tell if you can support easing of sanctions. Maybe limit the ban to article space (pblock). That way I can make edit requests. If it it deemed problematic, it'll anyways be declined. I don't see a better way to determine my editing capacity in the said area. This can be considered as a trial period and I can ask for a review after whatever time period is proposed. I would also request to allow permission to use COM:GR script here. The reason for this sanction is to prevent the issues flagged and there is no issue with that. It just replaces the old name with the new, doesn't even changes the image just the name bcoz it is changed on commons during a filemove. Pings to @Rosguill, @User:Black Kite and @Blue-Sonnet whose base for oppose/neutral was lack of activity. Shaan SenguptaTalk00:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Support: At least a narrowing of the topic ban to something like a tban from WP:CT/SA/IMH and WP:CT/SA/SG (election pages not included). A tban from editing anything related to India at all seems excessive, as the cause of the original tban appear to be edits relating to the Bangladesh war. WP:ARBIPA no longer exists, and the narrower topic ban is probably how a issue like that would have been handled if it were under the new CT/SA regime. regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]03:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Again, allowing this editor into a contentious topic without a sufficient track record of non-problematic editing is the issue here, therefore the appeal is also premature. Narrowing the ban would not address this. Zalaraz (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
I have listed some articles above that fall in this very area and have repeatedly said that I am here for a review of the TBan, and if it is not lifted altogether then atleast narrowing it to the flagged areas would allow me to restart work here. The main arguments were about my political leaning. I don't see a reason why that specific thing would be contained by keeping me away from South Asia altogether. Shaan SenguptaTalk03:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. The arguing over "Bharat" in a Tban review request seems indicative as to what contributions within the topic area might look like. "I am particularly surprised about how a historical name enshrined in the Indian constitution is being made a Hindu nationalist thing here on Wikipedia" reads as particularly disingenuous; this is an actively live political debate in the real world, it is very hard to imagine someone would think it is being invented on Wikipedia. It is even harder to imagine this given a Commons user page prominently displaying quotes falsified specifically with regards this political issue. All the articles listed above as created or heavily edited before the unblock directly relate to Indian politics, while the articles given as examples edited afterwards also relate to politics, albeit not Indian. Almost all of the last 500 Commons uploads have been related to Indian politics. There's no inherent issue to having particular interests, but obtaining experience outside of this broad topic would probably be quite helpful to getting a better grasp of editing, and demonstrating that a Tban is unnecessary. CMD (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
That's a good point, two of the quotes are apocryphal & none appear to have used the term "Bharat" originally. It's slightly concerning (as in, it's a user page and not an article) that historical quotes are being altered from their original verbiage to suit personal preference over the common name for a country. Whether or not it's a valid name is a separate issue - they've still doctored quotes and presented them as the original version. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet, thanks for highlighting this. Till date, I didn't realise that the quote attributed to Albert Einstein was never said by him. I had read it somewhere being attributed to him and I quoted it here. I should have run a fact check. You said two of the quotes are apocryphal. I found one and fixed it. Which is the other one you are talking about? Shaan SenguptaTalk16:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Shaan Sengupta, it was Mark Twain - from what I can tell that quote isn't on any published works, but I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed anything. It looks like it's been attributed to him for a while so it's not easy to untangle how it began. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet, I asked Gemini and Grok about it and both confirm these statements to Mark Twain. They say the quote comes from two different chapters of Twain's 1897 travelogue, Following the Equator: A Journey Around the World (also published as More Tramps Abroad), which recounts his 1895-1896 lecture tour around the world. I have combined both the quotes into one. I have not copied the full quote as it was too long but just the parts. It says that the first part where he talks about India/Bharat (quoted with some trimming) is from Chapter XXXVIII and the 2nd part about Varanasi/Benaras (quoted exactly with Benaras replaced as Varanasi, same city with multiple names) comes from Chapter L, both of the same book. In case you want the quote from the book, "This is indeed India! the land of dreams and romance, of fabulous wealth and fabulous poverty,...... the country of a hundred nations and a hundred tongues, of a thousand religions and two million gods, cradle of the human race, birthplace of human speech, mother of history, grandmother of legend, great-grandmother of tradition,....."Shaan SenguptaTalk18:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Interestingly, my Gemini gave me a different answer (that it didn't exist at all). I asked it about the current version & got this response:
"While the quote is frequently attributed to Mark Twain, there is no evidence that he ever wrote or said it. It is a common misattribution. Scholars and Twain experts have been unable to find this statement in any of his books, letters, essays, or recorded speeches".
The Twain quotation does seem to be largely directly copied, see (and the page before) for the first sentence on the user page and for the second. Doesn't explain why you combined them in this unclear way and there are missing ellipsis; nor why you changed the names Twain had used ("India" and "Benaras" you changed to "Bharat" and "Varanasi", respectively).
Similar with the Will Durant quotation, where he used "India" and "Mother India" instead of "Bharat" and "Bharat Mata", respectively (see ). In fact, looking again, there are some odd omissions from Durant's quotation, which from the version I linked to, is that India was the mother-land of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages; that she was the mother of our philosophy, mother, through Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother, through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all. You omitted the "through Arabs" bit about mathematics and omitted the references to Buddha and Christianity. Although I see there is a published Lok Sabha debate that omits the Arab mention before mathematics as well, so it's possible that was not your omission . Skynxnex (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
That might be what threw off my searches, interestingly I tried Gemini too and it insisted the quote wasn't from Twain at all!
I didn't look deeply enough to realise it was two quotes stitched together on top of two words being changed - it was altered so much that a basic search didn't come up with anything at first glance.
Since they were in quotation marks, I proceeded on the basis that they were largely unchanged (aside from "Bharat", it was pretty obvious that wasn't in the original). Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose only 537 edits since you were last unblocked, with most of those edits being in talk, does not provide enough of a sample to demonstrate that you would not be disruptive if allowed to return to the topic area. Come back after you've made a couple of thousand edits. TarnishedPathtalk06:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose when we allow someone back in with a topic ban, the expectation is they will demonstrate via their editing in other areas that that they can contribute and collaborate productively. While I appreciate the difficulty editors face being asked to edit in areas that may not interest them, it's a reasonable request when you have demonstrated behaviour that lead to a topic ban. Especially when the the problems with your editing were as long term as the OP with second chances already misused (even if topic ban violations rather than a specific return to poor behaviour in the area). Also while I appreciate the topic ban is quite wide, it's also true that there is a much wider part of the encyclopaedia they can still edit and when an editor has had historic problems it's always somewhat concerning when they cannot interest themselves in anything else. Note in response to something the OP said, the lack of knowledge shouldn't be a significant barrier. I'm sure people have almost single handedly created FAs despite a lack of knowledge in the subject of the article before they started. The point of wikipedia being a work that relies on references is that existing knowledge generally matters less than you research skills. Hence my focus on a lack of interest rather than a lack of knowledge. If the OP cannot find some interest in something outside their topic ban area to contribute a lot more, my only suggestion is they continue what they are doing want wait maybe 2 years or so. The length of time since they've caused problems and the number of edits by then might be enough to lift or relax their topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
BTW, about the Bharat thing, I don't consider it makes much of a difference to me at this time. What I will say is that given it's part of the Indian constitution I agree with Black Kite etc that it clearly can be used without Hindu nationalists connotations or intentions. However given the recent controversy over it's use in a manner that does seem to be due to Hindu nationalists intentions, I would have deep concerns if someone, especially someone with a topic ban from the area (even if I'm not so sure how much Hindu nationalism was the cause for that) and who say the topic ban area is the only thing that they really have knowledge and interest of, doesn't understand or accept that use of the term can have that effect. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Using "Bharat" preferentially over "India" concern me. The quotes issue (on their commons userpage) concern me regarding their ability to keep a neutral point of view in their edits. For example, the Durant quote on their page omits significant text about contributions from other peoples and changes "India" to "Bharat". See wikiquote for the correct text. Further, the use of LLMs to find the "correct" text for the quote is concerning. —rsjaffe🗣️22:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
When making edits relating to the Maghreb region, broadly construed, Bananakingler(talk·contribs), M.Bitton(talk·contribs), R3YBOl(talk·contribs), and Skitash(talk·contribs) must follow the editing expectations that would apply to a designated contentious topic. Violation of this remedy may be enforced in the same manner as a contentious topic, including through the standard set of user restrictions. Bananakingler, M.Bitton, and Skitash may appeal this remedy after six months, and every six months thereafter. R3YBOl may appeal this remedy at any time, and every six months thereafter.
For the purposes of content dispute resolution and edit warring, M.Bitton(talk·contribs), R3YBOl(talk·contribs), and Skitash(talk·contribs) are considered a single user. The three-revert rule applies to reverts by all three editors and, where they participate in discussions together, they are required to disclose this restriction and their arguments should be treated as though they were advanced by a single user.
M.Bitton(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.
M.Bitton(talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months, and every twelve months thereafter.
Skitash(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.
R3YBOl(talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed immediately, and every six months thereafter.
May 2026 Administrator Election – Call for Candidates
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
May 8–12: Discussion phase
May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
The permission error page for attempting to create a title on the blacklist with this pattern specifies that you should ask at WP:AN if you believe you have a valid need to override it. (It also specifies that you should just use ' instead, I should note.) ScalarFactor (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) seeks candidates for the 2026 election. The U4C is the global committee responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Elections are held annually, if elected a committee member serves for two years. English Wikipedia issues are generally not solved by the U4C, thanks to our ArbCom, but the knowledge we have can be of value.
This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki.
The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will week between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else on enwiki might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.
Please feel free to ask me any questions. Speaking very much only for myself and not for any other U4C member (nor have I consulted with any), I want to say how important I see getting more than 8 people this year on the U4C. We are supposed to have 16 members but have never gotten above 8. I believe - and again I am only speaking for myself here - that if the U4C doesn't start getting more capacity the foundation is going to start slowly increasing its willingness to take actions it might have been willing to leave to volunteers in the past. And my worry - and if that last sentence was a little speculative, this sentence is admittedly even more speculative - is that could include enwiki. In other words even for those who are like "I only care about enwiki" (respect!) I think there is a reason to at least think about who good candidates could be. Maybe that's even you! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi! As I have little cross-wiki experience, and no functionary/bureaucrat/ArbCom experience, I sadly don't think I am qualified enough to candidate for U4C this year, but I would love to get more people involved and hopefully help fill the seats! What can I do to help? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Cross project experience is certainly one set of experiences that would be useful. However, geographic diversity and language diversity are two other things (in addition to traditional qualifications like being an admin/CUOS/stewards/arb/etc) that voters have liked. For instance, beef had a little experience on zhwiki when they got elected, but basically all their project experience was as an admin here. So like I said if you're not the right person, I'd encourage you to think about who might be and give them a friendly nudge. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I encourage people to run for the U4C. I've been active on enwiki for 20+ years. Two years ago, I got myself on the Ombuds Commission. The OC is similar to the U4C in the sense that they both have movement-wide remits. This means I've had a chance to be exposed to things that happen on other projects, not to mention having the opportunity to meet a bunch of smart and dedicated people who I would have not otherwise been introduced to. I'm sure the same is true of the U4C. Enwiki is like The Shire; it's a great place to live, but it's also good to explore what lies beyond.
On thing I am curious about is the new requirement to be an admin. It seems odd that a group which is struggling to fill the available seats would start imposing additional membership requirements. RoySmith(talk)22:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I hold advanced userrights in multiple crosswiki projects and part of me thinks that the overlapping region in a Venn diagram for the group of "a recognizable name that 60% of the voters can support" and the group of "crosswiki people who have time to take on yet another role" are very small. Now that 3 U4C elections had taken place, I am in favour of putting in the admin requirement as the previous elections drew a large number of candidates that stood no chance due to lack of crosswiki experience, lack of sustained involvement or lack of advanced userrights. The result seems to speak for itself, as each election had less than half of its candidates receiving 50%+ of support (30% of candidates in 2024, 38% in 2024 special election and 33% in 2025). If they can't even obtain an admin on a smaller wikis (which is very easy to achieve with consistent editing over 3-6 months), I have little confidence that they are suitable to handle U4C cases, which are often complex and require substantial time commitment. OhanaUnitedTalk page05:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Barkeep49, how much of your time does this take? I can't stand myself, because I'm not an admin and have no intention of trying to become one. I agree with RoySmith that the committee is shooting itself in the foot here, and I don't believe that his point has been adequately answered. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Unlike on enwiki with arbcom where no non-admin has been elected in the modern era but several have come close suggesting one could be elected, non-admins have not done well in the U4C elections. We have received feedback from voters that they find evaluating candidates to be difficult. Given this feedback and history of results and because of the trust involved in the role, the U4C decided to use the same eligibility criteria that the Stewards have as a similar global role of high trust. As for the time commitment, it is definitely less than ArbCom; the official number is 4 hours a week which is roughly correct, though when someone takes on the equivalent of "drafter" it can be a bit more for a week or two. Most daily work happens on Discord, on meta reading and replying, and drafting and record keeping on the U4C wiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Request for edit filtering due to persistent harassment
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a persistent IP vandal (whose IP address keeps changing) who has been persistently harassing ShermanDuArthur recently. What started as persistent vandalism several years back has escalated to the IP persistently making attack edits on ShermanDuArthur's talk page over the past few months. The vandal's attacks consist of impersonating other users to make fake warnings against SDA for reverting the vandalism on Katie and Orbie (which, by the way, the vandalism there by the IP has been ongoing since around 2015). After several years of the IP going on and off with his disruptive edits, the article was protected for a year...but it did not stop the vandal from harassing SDA on his talk page, and the attacks the IP has made have also involved making accusations that I'm, somehow, harassing SDA (when I obviously am not).
After SDA's talk page was protected, the IP made several fake talk pages to harass SDA and myself with his vandalism. Over the past 72-or-so hours, I've found 2 attack pages that have since been deleted, but blocking the range and deleting the fake pages are only a stop-gap measure at this time. Under guidance from Ad Orientem, I am sincerely requesting there needs to be some sort of editing filter in place on ShermanDuArthur's talk page to prevent this IP vandal from making further attack pages, as well as to put the same edit filter on Katie and Orbie, if at all possible. Loyalmoonie (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Further to the above; there does appear to be a pattern of long term abuse and harassment going on here. My tech skills pretty much peaked with the advent of the electric pencil sharpener, but at this point I am thinking some kind of edit filter is needed for the entirety of ShermanDuArthur's user space. This LTA is simply renaming the attack pages when they are deleted and salted. Right now we are just playing whack a mole. I have opened a request at WP:EFR. However, someone with admin rights may be needed in order to see the deleted pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I've addressed the filter request regarding sub-pages. I'd say just keep semi-protecting the user talk page as long as is necessary. This is the same LTA as this. -- zzuuzz(talk)08:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
for the purposes of the autoconfirmed right, account age is now counted from the first edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago18 comments13 people in discussion
There is a change in how new users are autoconfirmed that will improve anti-vandalism protection. Currently, users who have had an account for a few days and made a few edits are automatically added to the Autoconfirmed users group. This configuration tends to be exploited by some vandals, who create accounts and start to use them only after some time. To mitigate this, the configuration will be updated next week so that – for the purpose of becoming autoconfirmed – the account age will be counted from their first edit, instead of registration date. The numeric value of the age threshold will remain the same. This change will be deployed only to wikis which require at least one edit as part of the autoconfirmation conditions.
While this does make more sense, it isn't much of a barrier as now vandals who plan ahead will just make one null edit when they create the account. Not even WP:BEANS. I would personally be for increasing the number of edits (and time) it takes to get autoconfirm, by a modest amount, both to protect from vandalism, and keep actual newbs outside articles that are semi-protected for a reason for just a little longer until they have just a LITTLE more experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I'd say 25 edits might be a decent number. I want to say 50 (both to further restrict vandalism and for symmetry with XC's 500) but that might be a little too high. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I would say 50 edits and 30 days (both must be done) would be very reasonable. This forces new users to slow down on key articles, but still leaves most articles open. Of course, the Office would never go for it, they don't have to deal with the day to day realities down here in the ditches. This is more than just vandalism fighting, it prevents all bad edits to articles that are protected until they are up to speed. The current requirements are way out of date. Dennis Brown - 2¢06:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I would certainly oppose this proposal as suggested. A lot of our articles are currently semi-protected, and every increase in protection comes with the tradeoff of limiting access to new users, and preventing good edits as well as bad edits. Currently, editor retention is a much more critical problem than anti-vandalism or poor-quality edits, and restricting edits even more risks creeping further away from our philosophy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I think you might be underestimating just how much of a barrier that would be to a new editor. If an article is getting hit that constantly, putting it under XC would make more sense -- I'm not seeing a flood of vandalism across normal semi-protected pages that would require such a change. Elli (talk|contribs) 14:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
It isn't just about vandalism, although it would help with vandalism. It would affect sockpuppetry (and sleeper accounts), harassment, and honest mistakes. Our goal isn't just to make it easy for anyone to edit semi-protected articles (or we wouldn't have any requirements to be autoconfirmed), it is about finding a balance to prevent disruption of all kinds (intentional or otherwise) on sensitive articles and to raise the bar for other types of abuse. 50/30 is actually a very low bar to participate fully on one of the largest and most trafficked websites on the planet. Dennis Brown - 2¢
It was pointed out to me when I heard of it for the first time some months ago that one edit is much more observable to several systems (edit filters) than zero edits. Izno (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
This makes sense on its own merits, taking age as some sort of proxy for experience, even if it doesn't do too much for vandalism. It's also always seemed odd that all edits counted, rather than mainspace edits. CMD (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I dealt with an ECP editor this week with almost 4.5K edits but only 650 mainspace ones. How does this help the pedia? BusterD (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for posting this ltbdl. I get notices but don't always read them. On the merits, I would like to see edit minimums for autoconfirmed go up. 50/30 seems like a good place. BusterD (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
However, it is pretty easy to see when someone is gaming ECP, so at least something can be done afterwards, like removing that bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
@AFC Vixen I've collapsed the bickering. Both parties should know better than to do that, so feel free to come back here if they resume the disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Self-promotion in userspace
Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That tag is useful for finding actual self-promotion, but the "Possible" part is key. It is just an indication of an edit worth reviewing for promotion based on keywords and phrases. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What's going on at Heights distribution?
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to put this. I was reading the page Heights distribution, and I noticed in the page history there's some edit warring, and on the talk page there is some sort of bickering going on (accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry etc). I have nothing to do with this, and I can't really find out if someone is in the wrong, but I figured maybe an admin should take a look at it, to try and figure it out. It seems like it's mostly 2 editors making a lot of changes without properly consulting first.
Since this is a popular page (about 180,000 views a month), I feel like changes should be made a bit more slowly and carefully. Again, I don't know if anyone is necessarily doing anything wrong. Sorry for being nosy in other people's business! Let Me Edit It (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Reason for the appeal: Since the protection date is currently indefinite, a significant trial reduction is necessary so that after the protection is expired after the expiry date, they would contribute to volunteered, good-faith editing
I am requesting a trial reduction for my CT/SA restrictions.
Community Consensus: At Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, a consensus was reached that my proposed geography updates of all South Asian random geography articles are constructive and do not require hundreds of individual talk page requests.
Sandbox Evidence: My finalized work is ready for review here: User:Satipem/sandbox
Administrative Silence: I have attempted to coordinate this with the protecting administrator, but have received no response after following their talk page commands.
I am a new editor seeking to implement this community-approved work under a trial period.
Hi! You state that "a consensus was reached" at that noticeboard, but the link you provide doesn't seem to show any responses to your request? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I have just done the steps of what to do to appeal for a trial reduction of geography stubs as they are non-controversial but for significant period. Also, I am sorry now I am back to independent mode and that's why others would be confused. Satipem (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
The protection log also states that the protection date even of simple random geography pages is also indefinite. If I was clear, then finally it would be reduced and finalized. Also, please look for other reliable sources that best suites these pages. Satipem (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
That plus the baseless argumentation Chaotic Enby has identified. The cherry on top is that Satipem was about 4 edits shy of just reaching WP:XC and being able to edit these articles without any issue, although now I anticipate that editors will have questions about their conduct. signed, Rosguilltalk14:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I was just about to write that some of this seems AI-generated? I'd very much like to see the consensus and proof this is community-approved.
I'm also not sure what "Since the protection date is currently indefinite, a significant trial reduction is necessary so that after the protection is expired after the expiry date, they would contribute to volunteered, good-faith editing" means? I don't think that part was AI-generated because it just doesn't make sense. Blue-Sonnet14:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I might be! Looking at the sandbox, I can't get the "reliable sources" to work - I've checked a few links at random and they don't appear to go anywhere, backing up the AI-generated theory.
It's also not clear to me what their "finalised work" is, they're are just a lot of links and vague statements about updating census data etc. Blue-Sonnet14:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Looks like it, actually - the sandbox apparently has 100 stubs on, so I wasn't sure exactly what they wanted to do with each of them.
It looks like they thought Yamaguchi would reduce page protection as soon as they made a request on the associated Talk page, now they want protection to be removed/reduced from all 100 pages so they don't have to make edit requests.
So Rosguill what should I do, to appeal independently, sincerely and clearly? Is there another option? I've seen the protection log and noticed geography stubs and not talking about military or caste-related topics. I use Grammarly or Google Satipem (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Satipem, you can start by responding to Chaotic Enby's implied question (either here or above): You state that "a consensus was reached" at that noticeboard, but the link you provide doesn't seem to show any responses to your request? Why did you assert that there was a prior consensus? signed, Rosguilltalk15:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Sorry actually I didn't knew and thought writing others would confuse once again clearly. Clearly state that if anyone of you have done, then trial reduction would be finalized Satipem (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
If reliable sources have founded for cities I've edited the talk page, then give me and finalize the trial. Satipem (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
@Satipem: Sorry, but your response above makes absolutely no sense to me. You do not appear to have sufficient command of the English language to be editing on the English Wikipedia. Donald Albury16:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Please don't ignore me. I am just seeking trial reduction request, and I sincerely want to finalize and stabilize activity, but following the clear steps, please give me the sincere, clear steps to find other, better reliable sources. Also, I now made 500s of edits and I'm nearing extended-confirmed, but trial is necessary for newer volunteers to give time. Satipem (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
So, the issue here is as follows. As several people have noted, you've crossed the 500 edit mark and are thus automatically allowed to directly edit EC-protected South Asia articles (and any other similarly protected articles). However, in the process of opening this thread and contacting Yamaguchi, you've drawn attention to the fact that 1) you're using AI 2) your ability to clearly communicate in English is a bit lacking 3) you don't appear to have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia sourcing best practices. You also seem to have taken the fact that some of your requests have been declined as evidence that there's something wrong with page protection, when more experienced editors commenting here have identified that in fact it's evidence that there was something wrong with your edit requests. Taken together, that makes a pretty compelling case that you should not be editing these articles directly, and should instead continue to make edit requests (if even that, provided others have found them to be constructive). If we aren't able to reach sufficient clarity and agreement from you here, you are likely to lose access to editing articles.
I understand that this is likely frustrating, but you have to realize that just seeking trial reduction request, and I sincerely want to finalize and stabilize activity, is not a meaningful request. None of this relates to any existing process on Wikipedia. We can't help you if you can't communicate with us reliably. signed, Rosguilltalk16:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
But sir I just clearly want a trial reduction since I'm concerned about indefinite protection, and the admin gave me the tip to make edit requests and since some were declined, I want to steps to identify and import reliable sources please as per below. Please, this is my sincere request, and these are just geography stubs. Satipem (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Are you talking about trying to lower the protection level? This could be a good idea especially for lower-traffic pages where caste/military-related disruption is less likely, although each page would probably have to be looked at independently as some are more likely to be successful than others. In that case, your best bet is to post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for an individual page and see how it goes from there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, exactly what it is about. Since the protection record in the protection log is indefinite and would concern it prevents newer editors, and almost all of them in sandbox being the simple geography articles and clearly not about military or caste, so it would allow for good-faith and volunteer talent for them. Also, for User:Rosgulll, I have already just now shifted to normal mode independently without any AI dependence (But I apologize), so there is a hope to finalize the trial, but reduction at WP:RFPP and finding better reliable sources is almost a last step. Satipem (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I am, now much clearly, referring to both the date reduction and the level reduction (to semi or even pending-changes for some pages, especially popular like other big major cities in Tier 2/3 or states). If someone from tells me the tips to search for new topics to add or reliable sources, then it would almost be the finalized step. Thank you:) Satipem (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
If you wish for a trial reduction in protection request (I accidentally linked WP:TRYUNPROT earlier, which only talks about semi-protected pages, but the logic is the same), your next steps are to find a page for which you believe to have a strong case, and look at the page and its edit history to see when it was protected and whether unprotection can be justified (for example, a page that has been protected a long time ago, hasn't seen much conflict since in its edit history or on its talk page, and only tangentially mentions the military or caste aspects). Then you can file a solid request at WP:RFPP.Regarding finding better sources, this is something you should be doing whenever you edit or request an edit, and shouldn't be seen as a last step. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
How do I look for reliable sources or what reliable should I look for? I just really want to sincerely seek my own consensus because of my concerns about random geography stubs related to towns, villages, districts, Tier-II/III cities, and localities, and since I post them according to steps in Noticeboard for India-related topics. It was really not military or caste-related topics, but significant amount of duration should be made. Satipem (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources - read the whole page, especially the See Also section at the bottom which has lots of guides to help you find sources and understand which ones to use.
Looking back through Satipem's edit history, though, I'm really not sure if they should be editing articles directly until they demonstrate a better understanding of sourcing requirements here. Anybody else think that blocking them from article space for a while might be a wise move?--SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Earlier I had been hoping that we'd be able to avoid that if we got sufficient responses here, but this does seem like it may be appropriate. This edit regrettably does not inspire confidence that they've gotten the message. signed, Rosguilltalk20:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I have to agree, if they don't know how to find reliable sources at 500 edits that leaves me rather concerned.
Their Talk page has several drafts that game been declined multiple times for lack of notability, the most recent being Draft:Nexus Ahmedabad One Mall.
In this edit the text feels AI-generated.
They changed the title of a dead link to make it "feel attractive", whilst the source they did add is anything but neutral by looking at it's "about us" page. That said, it was used to cite something relatively neutral (the number of stores). Blue-Sonnet06:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Satipem hasn't edited since we made these comments. Is there consensus for an article-space block yet, or should we let it ride and see what happens first? SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Support block from articles as per my comment above - thought it best I make this explicit.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Extraordinary Writ: Per WP:EDITATAFD–Editors are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period, for example to address the points raised during the discussion. If your edits are significant, you can add a note in the discussion. There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article. You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement), remove the AfD banner, or turn the article into a redirect. I'm not fully up to norms with the mores in AFD, but this suggests to me that the close was improper. Stikkyy (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I mean, it's irregular, but I'm not sure moving it back and re-opening the AfD would really be productive. If you think it's so problematic that it can't be kept in userspace, then I'd suggest nominating it at MfD (though you should review the previous MfD first). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stikkyy, for future reference — this article was moved by the user who created it. The point of the thing you quote is that you shouldn't change "A" from an article to a redirect, i.e. removing the content and making it a redirect. Moving articles currently at AFD is unusual, but not necessarily problematic, and userfying a newly created problematic article is sometimes done to get that article out of mainspace. If contention arises with such a move, this is typically because it's viewed as unfair to the user who created it, but here, the move was performed by the creator, so nobody would object on those grounds. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect "I’ve Been To The Mountaintop"
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User @BEFOR01 said in his edit summary of reverting “Restoring sourced content; removal contradicts cited sources. Please discuss on talk page (WP:V, WP:BURDEN).”
This is not a dispute over whether the sources are reliable, but whether they support the specific claim being made. The cited works describe multiple campaigns across different regionss which are not of the Soran Emirate and then give a total casualtie figure. They do not explicitly attribute the 15,000 figure to the Soran revolt alone as i said.
Per WP:V, material must be supported by the source as used, and per WP:BURDEN, the editor restoring the content needs to show that the source directly supports that specific attribution.
I’ve asked for a direct passage supporting this attribution, but none has been given, and the content continues to be restored without addressing that issue
The concern raised was about attribution rather than source reliability. The cited works (Hammer, Poujoulat, Moltke) describe broader Ottoman suppression campaigns across multiple regions and do not explicitly attribute the 15,000 figure solely to the Soran rebellion.
To address this, I have adjusted the wording in the article to clarify that the figure refers to the wider campaign context rather than exclusively to Soran.
I will avoid further reverts and am open to discussing any additional improvements on the article talk page. BEFOR01 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
He says “the sources clearly describe these events as part of the broader suppression of Kurdish revolts” the sources mention Alaçadağ which is in Antalya. This is not about Kurds or Soran specifically so it shouldn’t even be attributed to Soran specifically. Sinjarist (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
The current wording no longer attributes the 15,000 figure specifically to the Soran rebellion, but instead reflects the broader Ottoman suppression campaigns described in the cited sources.
The question of the exact identification or location of places such as "Alaçadağ" does not change this, as the figure is not being used to represent Soran-specific casualties.
If there is a reliable source that clearly attributes a different casualty figure specifically to the Soran rebellion, it can be added. Otherwise, the current wording is consistent with WP:V and WP:BURDEN.
Administrators don't manage content disputes, you should be following dispute resolution processes for this. I note that this report was posted to AN only half an hour after the first Talk page post, Sinjarist escalated this after one single Talk post and ten minutes after BEFOR01's reply - there are only three posts there now, so you've barely begun to discuss this with each other before escalating to administrators.
Please try to resolve this through discussion on the article Talk page & the appropriate venues before it escalates unnecessarily.
I'm also hopefully incorrect on this, but some posts look to be AI-generated. If one (or both) of you is using AI/LLM's, this is against the Wikipedia:LLM guideline. Please just seek a third opinion and try to get this resolved amicably. If that fails & there are chronic behavioural issues that can't be resolved any other way, then consider WP:ANI - note that you'll need to provide a clear explanation of the issues and diffs of the edits concerned. Blue-Sonnet02:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need a block
Latest comment: 3 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I've blocked the user from mainspace for 24 hours while the sockpuppet claims are investigated. I am not familiar enough with the alleged sockmaster to fully block at this moment. EvergreenFir(talk)16:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, community. I am having trouble finding where to post, so I am posting here.
I cannot edit with my WiFi turned on, or at school. A CU can prove this. Starway3 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello, The Bushranger. I do not know who Luna.t5 is. Can you please explain? I am new to Wikipedia and do not know much. I just try my best. Thanks Starway3 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
They're asking whether this is your first account, or have you used Wikipedia before registering this one? I'm a little surprised that a new user knows about CU and how it works. Blue-Sonnet04:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet: No I have not edited before this or used a Wikipedia account, Blue-Sonnet. I have read Wikipedia policy as is recommended before editing for months on hand. Starway3 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I concur with zzuuzz, this is almost certainly Luna.t5. I see no reason to avoid blocking both accounts on that basis, but will hold off for a few hours in case anyone sees something I don't. --Yamla (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Retract everything I said. (Strike it, close the discussion, block me indef) Yes I am Luna.t5. I am just trying to WP:CLEANSTART again, and also wanted to test the mobile app. Is there an app for simpleWP? Starway3 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
If you can, that would go a long way to show a willingness to reform - I think you're going to be blocked shortly, but it'll really help to show that you're taking this seriously and want to change.
And blocked. If you truly wish to appeal you will need to do so to the stewards as your primary account is globally locked. I suggest spending at least 6 months if not much longer away from Wikimedia projects entirely. CoconutOctopustalk22:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussions unclosed for over 100 days
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I think the usual folks at WP:CR may be too involved to close these long-overdue discussions (I am), so if anyone has the time and interest to discern consensus for these topics, that would be much appreciated:
Rjjiii closed the third one; that completes the above list and brings the oldest unclosed conversation on WP:CR down to 42 days.::whew:: Many thanks! -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can someone please check out this cat, 5 or 6 files are in the cat to be renamed, however, the originals are on Commons and I can't figure out how to remove them from the local cat. - FlightTime (open channel)21:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
I think I've taken care of it (see here), but this isn't an area of the project I spend much time in, so hopefully someone can correct me if I've made a hash of things somehow. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redirect creation request
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).
Arbitration
The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat has been closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Example (talk· contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This restriction may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.
Reports at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard about SchroCat are automatically subject to the "AE participation restriction". If there are particular editors whose input would be useful on a given thread, uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use their authority to invite them to comment.
SchroCat is banned from the English Wikipedia for three months.
SchroCat and Dronebogus are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, contributions made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
Fortuna imperatrix mundi is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. FIM is further banned from involving himself in any disputes between other editors, including actions such as warning an editor for their actions in such a dispute, except for obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Example (talk· contribs), and Example (talk· contribs) are topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving SchroCat, and vice versa. These restrictions may be appealed by either party six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
This is my raw draft. I am in the process of adding references and mid-titles and lead, after which I will be asking for an opinion and approval. I would appreciate if you could evaluate it in a couple of days. Thank you! Walerus (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Walerus, I'm afraid that Administrators don't review drafts. You can submit it through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process but you'll need to make some significant changes first:
Please also take the wealth of advice that you were given with your first draft to heart; since you've not included any sources it's virtually impossible to make any proper assessment of the draft right now.
It's also possible to rename your original draft instead of creating a brand new one, that way all the history is kept together. Blue-Sonnet05:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I have learned a lot, I have a ton of inline citations from the directors of NIMH, federal agencies and such, I will be now working in Visual Editor adding citations. So, the draft is not ready for an assessment, I will ask for AfC later in the week. For now, can I keep working on the draft here? Thank you! Walerus (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Nestor Cabrera Rosales WP:PGAME violation
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They're also editing at a speed of 5-6 edits a minute, with each minute spent on a different article. If it's not a bot, they're definitely acting like one!
They made a couple of genuine(ish) edits at the beginning - adding a photo then blanking an entire section of text , before going ham on adding and removing blank spaces by cycling through the same few articles. Blue-Sonnet00:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Iranian highway naming dispute
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. Road 77 (Iran) is generally known as Haraz Road. It could be verified in many Iranian and non-Iranian sources (like here, here and here). 77 number is technically the police number. I moved the article to Haraz, since I didn't find it against any active and universal guideline or convention for naming roads and highways. I also added some content for more clarity. @Sumanuil reverted all my edits. There has been an unfruitful discussion here.
Unfruitful? I told you exactly what the problem was. You were breaking file links by "correcting" the infobox. This page is for intractable behavior problems, not something that you could have avoided by using the preview button.Sumanuil. (talk to me)09:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:Torrent Project Screenshot.png
Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I wish to upload 13:28, 28 October 2016 version to Commons under a free license but i cannot do so as it's deleted Trade (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Do you have proof that the copyright holder has agreed to release it under a free license? --Chris02:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, it's currently tagged as non free. It prominently features a logo, which we generally treat as non-free. I am happy for you to prove me wrong, but right now the onus is on you to show that the image can be licensed freely. --Chris05:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
"Well, it's currently tagged as non free" Not anymore. You gonna help or just keep being contrarian for the sake of it? Trade (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Trade! In general, works such as logos or writing are copyrighted by default. However, this logo falls below the threshold of originality, and is thus already present on Commons as File:Torrentprojectlogo.png. The main issue here is the additional text, which is presumably complex enough to hold a copyright of its own, and the reason why the file has been nominated for deletion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IvanScrooge98
Latest comment: 2 months ago14 comments8 people in discussion
Consensus isn't going to emerge for any broad action. This can be revisited if necessary when their en wiki block expires but hopefully we will not see a repeat of the same conduct. StarMississippi03:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A thread about this editor was just closed at WP:ANI with IvanScrooge being blocked for 30 days and TPA disabled. However, I have a question about whether any further action is needed. I checked their global account. They are indefinitely blocked on the Italian Wikipedia for personal attacks and on the Dutch Wikipedia for vandalism, and are blocked on Gorontalo Wikiquote for vandalism. This behavior is so strange that I think that their account may have been compromised. If the account has not been compromised, this is still a blatant pattern of cross-wiki abuse. Is it time to ask stewards to globally lock or globally block? (I am not sure what the difference is.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I've looked into this myself before now - from what I understand, Gblocks allow an account to continue editing on individual projects, but block them from everything else.
Global locks more specifically lock someone out of an account and prevent anyone from logging back in, while global blocks prevent editing (besides on Meta) while still allowing the person to be logged in. The account can also be whitelisted on indvidual wikis, though I don't know how common that is. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions)06:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I may be incredibly naïve, but the Dutch Wikipedia block was from a decade ago, and seems more related to them doing an obnoxious thing that they did in Italian Wikipedia rather than anything they did on Dutch Wikipedia or anything extremely serious. I can't for the life of me figure out what the Gorontalo Wikiquote vandalism was about looking at their three edits there (perhaps I missing something lost in translation or have a case of the dumbs).
IvanScrooge and their history has already been under heavy scrutiny the last couple weeks, and it just seems to me, on some level, not very sporting to pursue a global block after it wasn't while their behavior was being discussed. There's already a topic ban in place for a huge problem topic, a month-long block, and TPA revoked for a violation that was, in the big picture, relatively benign and not related to the specific bad topic.
Whatever happens, IvanScrooge98, I really think it would best if you take a significant break from WMF projects. It really does feel like you're going on "full tilt" here in response to recent conduct discussions, and I don't think that has a happy ending for anyone. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I think you're right - I enlisted my Dutch mother to see if I'd missed anything, but it does seem to be related to that. At Italian Wikipedia, they seem to have insisted on Ivan giving a forced apology that never happened - thankfully we don't do that here because we recognise that we're (usually) talking to adults.
So the worst out of the others is Italian Wiki, where it seems that would have been lifted if an apology had been made, but even then people weren't comfortable with admins forcing another editor to apologise. Blue-Sonnet06:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Given their history here, I can see a forced apology not going well. Heck, it's not the kind of thing that would go well with me, either. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The blocks were over a long period of time so that seems unlikely. Seems more like a long-term pattern of behaviour.
@CoffeeCrumbs none of his edits on the Gorontalo Wikiquote are vandalism, they are still up in fact and have not been reverted. Unless the edits were deleted perhaps. I would not really put much weight onto a block for a Wikiquote in an obscure Indonesian language. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I found out a little more about Italian Wikipedia. Their ARBCOM decision is here where Ivan was instructed to apologise and withdraw accusations (e.g. admins are mafioso).
It was a one year topic ban originally, which was increased to a full indef since Ivan didn't withdraw or apologise - here's a translation:
"the panel found that the user IvanScrooge98 had let himself go, on Wikimedia projects and on sites outside the projects, to make serious accusations against the administrators of the Italian Wikipedia and, in particular, against the user TrinacrianGolem, who is omitted to be mentioned here;
...The panel, given the bans already applied against IvanScrooge98 and considering what has emerged, believes it should apply a different approach to the resolution of this report, aimed at giving the user a chance to demonstrate that it is still possible to hope for a constructive contribution to the encyclopedia, by applying a sector-specific ban on the topics that led to the current situation."
Oh come on. Instead of a month of pause, this user is constantly being forced to attend Wikipedia to keep updated about the discussions about themselves. AE, ANI, AN. There is no behavioral indication of an account compromise, just of off-wiki stress. Global locks are issued to cross-wiki vandalism-only accounts and sockpuppets; the closest to what you may mean is a global ban. Which I see as neither necessary nor happening if proposed. Can we close this, let the month expire without more trouble and pings and see if the behavior changes afterwards? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I just realised I never made my feelings clear on this - I don't know what the future holds for Ivan at English Wikipedia, but I don't think they need a full block/ban from all projects.
The Italian block is the only major issue and it seemed a bit overzealous to me (but this is based on machine translation) - other editors on the same project also had concerns at the time. They've got thousands of edits on other projects like Wiktionary (40k edits) & no major problems elsewhere that I can see.
I don't think Ivan should have a global ban/block on top of what they've already got. If it carries on here after they come back, then we can review things. Blue-Sonnet13:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
After reading this whole section, I think I thoroughly agree with Blue-Sonnet. We don't force people to apologise and shouldn't really care about when another project does: ignore it:wp and nl:wp. The wikiquote situation sounds almost like a mistake, and definitely not grounds for seeking global sanctions. I basically don't see any reason to suggest that he should be indefinitely blocked, or indefinitely banned, from any project — absolutely no reason to suggest that he should be globally blocked. Let's restrict sanctions to what can be done here. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit war on Austenasia
Latest comment: 2 months ago18 comments9 people in discussion
A number of newly created accounts and unregistered IPs have been attempting to change the official website (austenasia.org) linked to from the Austenasia article to austenasia.com. The micronation Empire of Austenasia's online sources all state that last year, the website previously used by the micronation (.com) was misappropriated by a disgruntled former member after he was voted out of office. He changed the website, first to promote a "Commonwealth" of Austenasia, and now confusingly to promote a rival Empire. Meanwhile, the actual micronation Austenasia made a new site at austenasia.org, which the Wikipedia article's URL was updated to.
All of these new Wikipedia accounts created to change the .org link to .com - despite the latter now no longer being run by an actual member of Austenasia - are making the same sort of claims, namely that no sources have .org as the official website. This is demonstratably false:
All of the micronation's online sources - the YouTube channel, Facebook group, X account, etc. - have .org as the official site, and explain that .com has been hijacked. These channels were linked to by .com up until the site was misappropriated, as can be confirmed with Wayback Machine.
Searching for Austenasia on Google Maps (i.e., the actual location of the micronation's main "base", as visited by tourists and journalists and the like) shows a business listing as a tourist attraction which a) has been verified - so Google has contacted the people actually living there - and b) has austenasia.org as the location's website.
The most recent video uploaded to the aforementioned Austenasia YouTube channel shows Jonathan Austen, the micronation's founder, explaining that .com has been taken over by a hostile actor and should no longer be used for information about the micronation. This channel dates back to 2009 and has been uploading videos about Austenasia continually since then.
Other notable micronations which have had long-term interactions and friendships with Austenasia - such as Westarctica - list .org as the official site for it on their own websites.
I strongly suspect that some or all of the accounts trying to change .org to .com are sockpuppets, as very few people are involved with the administrator of .com as opposed to the original Austenasia. Despite the talk page being mentioned several times in the numerous manual reverts being made, none of them have used it to discuss the situation further.
I appreciate that both .org and .com are self-published sites. However, that is part of the very nature of micronations, and insofar that a micronation can have an "official site", it can only have one. The .com website itself admits that its "version" of the micronation no longer functions under the authority of the Emperor listed on all the other online sources about Austenasia, and contextually all the evidence points to the fact that austenasia.org replaced austenasia.com as the official website of the micronation when control of the latter was seized from Austenasia's leadership last year.
Although I recently made my account, and my first edit was changing the website on the article (I have an academic interest in micronations), I can confirm that I am not affiliated with either Austenasia (which seems like a bad faith interpretation of my edits) — it's clear there's been a split within the micronation, and Wikipedia's job isn't to decide which one is the "real" Austenasia (whatever that means). I draw an issue with the line of reasoning from OP, which seems to be a narrative more than actual truth — I don't know how one can "seize a website from [Austenasian] leadership", and I'm equally as dubious about other claims they've made. Most of them aren't relevant.
It's clear that there's been a leadership split or dispute. Whatever you wish to call it. That isn't unprecedented — take a look at Talossa— for years there were disputes over which was the "real" one (and I say that grimacing) — but ultimately that wasn't a decision Wikipedia itself made, it only documented the facts surrounding its events.
I think the best course of action is to either not have any website listed or have both listed — and mention the dispute objectively with documented sources so we can try to weed out the bias on either side.
I also want to note that given the wording of Katechon08 regarding this dispute — I suspect they do have a sword in this fight — an affiliation with Austenasia, and should declare as such if that is the case.
I have an academic interest in micronations. I wasn't aware that it was possible to have an academic interest in micronations. Next you'll be telling us that you are doing a degree course in train numbers and the game of tiddlywinks. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
There have been academic studies on micronationalism — so yes, I do have an academic interest in the subject.
I will also note that your unfamiliarity with the academic study of micronationalism is not really relevant to the issue being discussed. Archive of Crows (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, Phil, I usually look forwards to your comments as they're insightful and I usually find myself in agreement with them, but this was absolutely uncalled for. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I've been involved in trying to revert these unproductive edits, and I do agree that it is very suspicious that the .com edits seem to only come from a set of 3 day-old accounts ( User:DelightfullyOpposite, User:~2026-23840-66 and Archive of Crows) that are all day-old accounts (at the time), seem purpose built to only edit this page, seemingly abandoned after each use; and based on some of their odd edit summaries, they seem to know more than they are letting on. I have a strong gut feeling that all three are the same individual using sockpuppets, and it might be worth running an IP check on said accounts. Pax Brittanica (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Again, I have already made my position and interest in this topic clear. My involvement here is based on an interest in micronations as a subject area and a desire to ensure that the article Austenasia complies with Wikipedia policy. I have no personal stake in the dispute itself. In fact, my position throughout has been consistent: either both websites should be listed, or neither should be.
What concerns me is that you appear to be dismissing virtually every editor who has attempted to change the "official website" field as acting improperly or "unproductive", despite those editors being different individuals with differing rationales. Your suggestion regarding User:DelightfullyOpposite also does not appear especially persuasive, given that the account is over a year old and has not edited since June 2025.
More importantly, your own wording — that certain users "seem to be more than they're letting on" — strongly suggests that you believe there are undisclosed connections involved here. If that is the case, then it is entirely reasonable to ask whether you yourself are connected to austenasia.org, particularly given the positions you are advancing in this discussion. If such a connection exists, it should be disclosed so that other editors can properly evaluate the discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's transparency and conflict-of-interest guidelines.
To reiterate, this discussion is not about deciding which entity is the "legitimate" Austenasia. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of such disputes, nor should it attempt to be. The issue here is simply how Wikipedia should neutrally and policy-compliantly handle a disputed claim regarding the use of the term "official website". Archive of Crows (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
In fact, my position throughout has been consistent: either both websites should be listed, or neither should be. This is demonstrably not the case, as several of your edits (e.g. diff 1, diff 2) have been to replace the .org with the .com. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
That was before understanding that there was an active conflict going on — when you google "Austenasia", the first link that pops up is austenasia.com, so I think you can forgive my edits to include it. Once I realised there was an active dispute, I've proposed just either linking both, or not linking either. Archive of Crows (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I understand that it is not Wikipedia's place to arbiter which entity is the "legitimate" Austenasia, but all the evidence seems to point to the fact that the Austenasia that the Wikipedia article is about - i.e., the micronation based in Carshalton, founded in 2008, which has been covered by journalists and visited by tourists - is represented by the .org website. The people living at the physical location who declared their house to be independent represent their project using the .org website, as confirmed by the verified Google Maps listing and the numerous other online sources which have been aligned with and used by the micronation for many years now. It doesn't seem that there's been a genuine "split" in the manner of Talossa, but rather that the individual previously trusted to run the .com domain refused to return it to the micronation's leaders after being voted out of the micronation and so used it to promote his own ideal version of events. That's not really a "breakaway" movement in a sense worthy of Wikipedia coverage; all the .com website has going for it is that it uses the same domain name as the micronation's previous website, but the author of the current .com site admits that it is not the same entity. Although there's plenty of content out there documenting the events of the .com site's takeover and its author's expulsion from Austenasia, it's all self-published, so I don't think it's appropriate for that to be documented - at least not in detail - on the Wikipedia article. Regarding the "both or none" suggestion, my position is that Wikipedia should either feature neither, or the one which is featured on all of the micronation's online media outlets, because short of going into a lot of detail that can only be referenced with non-third-party and "in-character" sources, I don't see a reason for Wikipedia to link to the old web domain which all the rest of Austenasia's online sources (as well as those of other micronations) are saying has been misappropriated. Katechon08 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Drive-by admin comment: The issue which of micronation website to link to is a content issue and therefore not a matter for this board; see generally WP:DR. If there is evidence that there has been disruptive editing by accounts, especially SPAs, dedicated to this micronation, then this evidence should be concisely presented with diffs so that we can consider whether to block the lot of them. Sandstein 11:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the suspected sockpuppet accounts driving this edit war, here are the relevant edit histories: 1, 2, 3. All appear to be single-issue throwaways created to restart the edit war under a different name. As mentioned earlier regarding some unusual edit summaries, I think it is worth running an IP check on these three accounts as I suspect all three are the same person. Pax Brittanica (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
You'll need to provide several diffs of specific edits that you feel show a direct link between each account, then an administrator who has access to the right toolset will perform an investigation.
Just presenting their entire edit history and expecting admins to trawl through them all won't go very far; if it was that simple something would have been done already.
If you making an allegation of sockpuppetry, you'll need to provide specific evidence (diffs) to back that up.
This is usually done at SPI, but it's possible that an admin might also consider it here if the evidence is strong enough. Blue-Sonnet12:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago18 comments8 people in discussion
I dont know if it is right place but from last 2 weeks I am getting emails again and again from wikipediasupport.com. I dont know if its official Wikipedia website or not. But they are asking me to pay money if I want my Wikipedia page to be saved. Upon denying they are again and again sending me emails with discounts. While checking today my page deletion discussions I also saw they also posted fake comment that I paid for Wikipedia page which is completely false. I know Wikipedia is voluntarily action so I searched on google Wikipedia scam then I found out how this scam runs. I also reported to info-en@wikimedia.org from my official email. I have also attached screenshot. Hopefully these crooks can be punished. Alexandra23091 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
No, they are not official. The WMF foundation will never ask you for money to do that. They wouldn't just randomly email you from that domain. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 02:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you for reporting it. For clarification, this is indeed a scam. As suggested in WP:SCAM, on your end you should simply not engage with any such emails. CMD (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The blaring red klaxons in my head are at an ear-shattering volume. While I should possibly seek medical intervention for this condition, going along with this was an AFD by a completely new editor, User:Anderson065, who nominated the article for deletion as their first activity, five minutes after registering for an account. This could be innocent, but Anderson065 at least has to address this issue because it also could be part of what seems to be an extortion scam. (I haven't notified yet, but I will as soon as I post this reply). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, their userpage doesn't inspire confidence - how often does someone who's never edited Wikipedia before, suddenly know that an article should be deleted and how to submit a well-written AFD request? Then they added it to the AFD log?
Feels like the scammers are joe-jobbing to me. After all, if Jakob paid for a Wikipedia article, it would be absolutely crazy to draw attention to it in this way, plus notified AN and the WMF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Had a CU result, but all were unrelated! Have to wait for the behavioural check - it could be that a few different UPE's are waiting to swoop in and demand payment if the article doesn't survive AFD. Blue-Sonnet16:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
As one of the (un)lucky people to have stumbled upon the AfD and are now a part of this huge mess, it seems like we can't have it either way. Assuming this is a case of scamming/extortion, I'd assume the scammers need the article to remain up so they can continue asking for money to preserve it, while themselves taking it to AfD to show that its existence is threatened. Then if payment is recieved they all vote keep at the AfD. What can we even do? Is there a case for article deletion and creation blocking in the case that it is proven to be a scam? Harryb7 (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
They may nominate the article for deletion simply because it was created by a competitor, or a potential mark refused to pay up & they're angry/want to show they mean business.
Or, like you've said, one may nominate then suddenly a load of brands new editors swoop in to "save" the article once payment is received.
It looks like the AFD nominator has been blocked for being a sock after all - they've completely disappeared after they did what they wanted to do and are probably onto a new account. Blue-Sonnet06:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
That said, looking at Alexandra's page, I'm very suspicious as to whether she'd make the sort of grammatical errors we're seeing from the OP. I'm not sure whether we've ever spoken to her at any point during this debacle. Blue-Sonnet07:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
100% agree with the grammar point. Do we think anything more will come out of this extortion accusation (have enwiki admins identified/verified the email)? I might look at relisting the article soonish if/when this calms down. Harryb7 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Not sure TBH, I don't think we'll be notified of anything since off-Wiki evidence usually needs to kept private.
I've heard of Wikimedia claiming a website domain name through copyright since it included "Wikipedia", otherwise I think they would probably leave it to us to figure out what to do on the ground, as it were. Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies is interesting reading on that front.
If you feel the article should be relisted then you can do that whenever you like, you might want to watchlist it so you can keep an eye out for anything suspicious. Blue-Sonnet18:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I've speedy-closed the AFD in the spirit of WP:TNT, saying basically "this is too big of a mess, but if you're a good-faith contributor, you're free to renominate it". I'm about to notify all established participants, which I define as anyone who edited the AFD (minus deletion-sorters) and has been around for over a year or has made over 1000 edits. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
CfD backlog
Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
There are 206 old open discussions at WP:CFD. Most of the remaining CfDs are ones that are complicated or were participated in by myself. This is one that doesn't get enough attention outside of the usual participants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps provide an example of the standard format and let it speak for itself?
Rename/merge
; [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_1]]
* [[:Category:Foo]] to [[:Category:Bar]]
* [[:Category:Foo2]] to [[:Category:Bar2]] and [[:Category:Baz]]
* REDIRECT [[:Category:Foo3]] to [[:Category:Bar3]]
Whoever closed about 1/3 of the open nominations, good job. I still have the above question to ask the admins about revising WP:CFDW guidelines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Protecting Afghan ethnicity articles
Latest comment: 2 months ago32 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Non-administrator comment) I see the userscript has been created (yay!); for future reference, WP:RFPP/B has recently been created for exactly this type of request. Feel free to file something there if need be in the future. Best, Staraction (talk·contribs) (please ping on reply) 09:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
@MSK @Chaotic Enby Just checking in, is the userscript up and running, or is there still something that needs to be sorted out on the technical side? SdHb (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Done, I think @WhatamIdoing let me know if I missed anything I think I got most of everything from the RFC. If you find others feel free to dump them over at WP:BATCH and I'll try to protect them as well. Feel free to ping me if anything comes up. Dr vulpes(Talk)22:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
@Dr vulpes I don't think Afghan Hound should fall under this when the reasoning is 'to prevent unverifiable and possibly bad-faith changes to statements about how many people of each ethnicity live in an area'. Most of the IP edits are constructive and good-faith. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Dr vulpes, you missed Sar-e-Pol Province (or rather, I think you protected the redirect). Speaking of redirections, as I was expanding the articles on the topic of regions, provinces, districts etc., I was actually thinking of moving the province/district pages from X Province to Province of X as it suits better with the English language (e.g. following the provinces of Italy). The naming conventions on geographic names doesn't have specified guidelines on that. So, if I decide to move those pages, would the protection move with it or not? SdHb (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
@Dr vulpes Protection for Jats was changed as part of this, and I don't think it should have been. This falls under WP:CT/CASTE, and the article was previously ECP'd. There's an arbitration remedies notice mentioning ECR restrictions on its talk page, so I think this should be changed back. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting assistance to revert a hijack from last month
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Hi all, please can someone with admin powers revert this hijack?
I would like to raise a concern regarding possible page hijacking and incorrect article replacement connected to suspected sockpuppet activity. Earlier, the article related to my film Tavvai (film) was nominated by an editor who was later blocked as a sockpuppet. While reviewing that editor’s cases and edit history, I noticed that several articles appear to have been hijacked or overwritten with unrelated content. One example is K. P. Singh (actor). Originally, this page was related to actor Kanwnpreet Singh, but later another actor’s details were inserted into the same article under the shortened name format “K. P. Singh”. User DareshMohan redirected the page after noticing the issue. However, senior editor Pigsonthewing later reverted that action, possibly without reviewing the full edit history and background of the page. I request experienced editors/admins to please review the page history and related edits carefully, as this may be part of a broader pattern involving article hijacking or misleading content replacement connected to the sockpuppet activity. Shehin1234 (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Have split the history of the two subjects via WP:HISTMERGE. As far as I can tell, Kanwalpreet Singh (actor) though the same subject as the AfD, is not a direct recreation of the deleted content and may require a AfD to determine again if the subject is notable. – robertsky (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, this user just keeps putting the redistributed results for 2021 before the 2021 results, which is chronologically nonsensical (since the ridings were redistributed after 2021), I have tried contacting them, but they refuse to answer, I am not seeking any punishment, I just want them to know so they stop making that mistake and it seems that they are not seeing my messages for some odd reason, if a mod or someone could just get them to acknowledge, so that I can at least discuss the issue with them, that'd be great. Stupid encyclopedia (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Stupid encyclopedia, looking at the last few edits in your contribs to try to figure out what you are talking about, I see most of those pages need their tables rearranged into chronological order (not related to this report, just a note). I also see that DerangedArsonist has not edited since April 7. And I certainly don't see any evidence where they "just keep putting" anything anywhere, unless you are talking about their edits from July and August of 2025? If I am incorrect, please provide the diffs you are discussing, otherwise this report seems moot. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The discussion phase of the May 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 2 months ago22 comments10 people in discussion
Screenshot of vandalism, seen in Monobook and Google Chrome
There's some automated disruption over at WP:AIV which not only involves TA's but also seemingly legitimate accounts which appear to have been compromised. See page history, especially prior to 2026-05-05T03:35:44. tony04:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
They apparently tried to look at a diff and were all redirected to this page with the subject pre-populated - I'd love to know how that happened to two dozen editors at once, though. Blue-Sonnet05:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Basically, this vandal figured out how to replace page content with a warning that looks like an edit filter, and a button that takes you to an AIV report linked by Loriendrew. The vandal then replaced several random templates with this code, functionally blanking all pages on which they were transcluded. See screenshot, a now-revdeleted revision of {{Iowa-radio-station-stub}}. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Oh great - I much prefer the socks that are happy to leave posts stating "this is XYZ's new account" before going off to make small, easily reverted edits.
I hope there's a way for Meta to combat this - it'll probably get worse once that new AI that can find security flaws in software gets released. Anyone and their dog will be able to damage Wikipedia (and anything else) using something like that. Blue-Sonnet06:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Just saw another edit at AIV - thought this has been settled for now, I don't see any further signs of template vandalism, any know where this is coming from now? User3749 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Has an edit filter already been created to disallow such edits? If not, I think we urgently need one, because this can be abused for purposes way more nefarious than vandalism.-- sapphaline (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. I don't understand why; the edit summary makes it sound as if I broke some rule, but there's no relevant page notice. I would be objecting if the person removing it weren't already working on implementing this request. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Somewhere in the beginning of the page, the expectation is provided that private filters (which this would be one) should be discussed with/on the edit filter email list, not onwiki, to avoid WP:BEANS. Izno (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Why would this need to be a private filter? Someone performed a rather spectacular kind of vandalism, exploiting a certain kind of hole in our security that anyone with the HTML/CSS knowledge could similarly exploit, and I would expect the solution to be rather simple — just prohibit edits with elements that hide or replace content already on the page. I always assumed that private filters were for long-term abusers who have characteristic behavioural patterns, e.g. So-and-so tends to write in this peculiar fashion and target articles related to this topic. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Since you were so certain in your previous statement, I figured you were familiar with their standards. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I am familiar with their standards because I can read a page that says "this is where things will be discussed about such forth and such with", and have knowledge about another relevant filter that is also private. As an admin, you have access to Special:AbuseFilter so you may also review the filter list both for the prior filter as well as whatever has been worked on for your request.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to add that while I never believe the actions that led to this to be vandalism, the editor that has caused this has repeatedly moved articles, renamed them, created redirects, removed 60% of the main MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak article without waiting for consensus, or even asking for suggestions/advice. Just doing what they think is best. The discussion is now spread across 3 talk pages, 2 articles and this board. I think.. Neiglass (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Just noting that I did notify CostalCal(talk·contribs) of this discussion (diff) even though I did not name them in my initial post. I followed up with a sort of gentle nudge that was not meant as a formal warning (diff). In the meantime, another editor, SarekOfVulcan(talk·contribs), has chimed in with a similar nudge/soft warning on their talk page (diff). —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I've closed the discussion as procedural keep, as the current state of the discussion and article makes it near-impossible to actually determine consensus, as noted above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)21:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@~2026-28286-86, I think what you're saying is that after deleting a page that had been repeatedly recreated, the admin added indefinite semi-protection so that it could not be recreated again. If you're asking if that's okay for an admin to do, it's not uncommon. If you're asking if it was appropriate in a specific case, we'll need to know which page it was. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Are you possibly referring to Template:Sockpuppeteer/sandbox, that's the only page I can see that you've edited recently? That isn't the general sandbox by the way, it's a template so you shouldn't really be editing it. I'm making a complete guess since I can't see anything else in your history that might clear up which article you're asking about (this doesn't really fit either), so it'd be great if you can let us know exactly what you're referring to.
I'm really not sure what's being asked of me here, or which action, but I'm about to log off for the evening. If an article needs unprotecting, any admin can feel free. StarMississippi02:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It's very confusing what you're asking or suggesting here. It's already impossible for editors who are not autoconfirmed or confirmed to create new pages in the article space due to site wide setting regardless of whether there was ever an article. There are ways editors can sort of try to make articles without new pages but in the general case these attempted workarounds cannot be stopped by semiprotection just edit filters and to some extent salting. Repeatedly recreated articles can have their titles or variations of their titles salted to try and prevent recreation but this is intended to stop higher level editors e.g. confirmed/autoconfirmed who can create the articles. It's not intended to stop editors who are not yet confirmed/autoconfirmed since there's no point as they're already prevented from creating them as with all articles. (It may sometimes be used for pages outside of article space including repeatedly recreated drafts.) There is an existing policy allowing surrounding when salting/creation protection can be used which I don't see a reason to change and you haven't outlined any. (Note the policy page you linked does make it clear semi-creation protection should not be used in main space since it's pointless.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Are you talking about a specific page? I'm afraid that you're not making sense right now so we don't know how to reply to you.
We cannot answer your question if we don't understand what you're asking. What is it, specifically, that you want administrators to do? Try to be as clear as you can, because none of us know what you want to happen. Blue-Sonnet06:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
We are still not understanding what you're asking for. Can you please try to reword? Maybe type your question in your own language into Google translate and bring us the English result. None of us know what When they will be deleted article pages due to repeatedly recreated, they will semiprotect the deleted article pages, indefinitely, from creating the article pages from the English Wikipedia due to repeatedly recreated means, as it doesn't make sense in English. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Kami tidak mengerti apa yang Anda tanyakan. Postingan Anda tidak masuk akal dalam bahasa Inggris. Mungkin Anda bisa menggunakan Google Translate. Valereee (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Maaf, apakah ada laman tertentu yang Anda maksud? Pembuatan laman baru memang sudah dibatasi. Penggunaan WP:SALT hanya untuk kasus tertentu, ketika laman yang sudah dihapus dibuat ulang berkali-kali.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Vincelord unblock appeal
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that there was no excuse for making nearly 700 DEFAULTSORT spelling errors. However I feel it is unfair to indefinitely block me from doing other types of editing when my record shows no other types of mistakes. If you unblock me I promise I will not make any other edits pertaining to adding DEFAULTSORT and will instead to stick to edits like adding categories to articles and adding link brackets or italics. I have never made any mistakes with edits like those. As an editor for 15 years I would like to chance to continue to improve Wikipedia by making even minor edits. I always edited in good faith and never meant to be disruptive. Vincelord (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
My mistake I did not review the timeline: I should have said this would be a valid place to request per the standard block notice, but you then also posted an unblock request, posted at the ANI thread and also on Star Mississippi's user page. Then later in two other places. KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this account need paid disclosure?
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Re diff: Edit description says "I (Polski 97) work at Fairbanks International Airport and received the upcoming flight schedules for Air North. We have direct seasonal charter flights to Dawson City." --みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
@Minna Sora no Shita, The user in question has not responded to questions about their apparent conflict of interest (they haven't made any edits at all past their first one) so this report (and anything at WP:COIN) is a bit premature. I know cases like AIV and UAA are often looking for more immediate response, but we can wait for editors with COI to give us answers first. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If another admin conducts an arbitration-enforcement block, and the blocked editor's conduct following the block is of a sort that would lead to revocation of talk page access, is revoking TPA something any admin can do unilaterally, or is it considered "changing or revoking an enforcement action"? - The BushrangerOne ping only09:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Technically, I believe it is, since the only two exceptions are written as The administrator who originally imposed the restriction affirmatively consents to the change and The restriction was issued more than a year ago. That's probably something that could be usefully added to the list of exceptions. Black Kite (talk)11:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and have never had to deal with this before but IMO unless the admin imposing the remedy has specifically noted they are leaving talk page access in their logging or in other comments then it's not modifying the restriction and therefore is allowed. The removal is of course an ordinary admin action and can be reversed like any admin action but the restriction remains in place. I don't consider this different from if an editor receives a CTOP TBAN or CTOP partial block and an admin later imposes a full block as a regular admin action which AFAIK regularly happens. In fact I strongly suspect there have even been cases where an editor received a CTOP limited time block and before it ended a regular admin action indefinite especially from ANI cases where more evidence emerged about wider behaviour or whatever. (I'm not referring to a community site ban but just a regular admin indefinite.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, I would actually argue that it is"modifying the restriction": the original block covers every page on the project except the user's own talk page, and pulling TPA extends the block to cover the talk page as well.
But I would agree that unless the original block expressly leaves TPA open (which I've never seen, but may have occurred) then I wouldn't think it's against the spirit of this rule for another admin to nix TPA where it clearly needs nixing. So this could IMO be added as an exception. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BTW I'd support some clarification that additional restrictions can still be imposed as regular admin actions which I think is how it's generally handled now. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It is "changing" it, but I think it should clearly be allowed. Admins unilaterally enhance restrictions on already-restricted editors or pages all the time. However, I also support altering the exceptions note, per others. That would be in line non-CU admins being expressly allowed to tighten the blocks on CU-blocked editors as long as they don't reduce the CU-block aspects. And obviously they could not place their lower-rights actions under the flag of the higher-rights first action. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Now that multiple blocks are a thing, why not place a second block with TPA removal? It would have the nice side-effect of that block being appealable and removable through the default procedures if needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Concerns over the handling of an RM pinging dispute
Latest comment: 2 months ago45 comments13 people in discussion
I'm wondering if a third party would have a look at a thread at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Pinging. For context, a bunch of wikiprojects were pinged to the RM because they were "tagged on the talkpage". It seemed to me and others that this selection of wikiprojects was somewhat one-sided, and could increase bias in an RM over the neutrality of an article title. A user then went and notified WP:CONSERVATISM, and was questioned for doing so as apparently pinging non-tagged wikiprojects may be canvassing. Their response was that they were attempting to keep the balance fair. Again they were told in no uncertain terms that this was "textbook CANVASSING". I defended their ping, and the back and forth that ensued was imo a positive and informative one about the merits of pinging the wikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page (and only those wikiprojects) to RFCs in contentious topics.
This all seems to me to be a rather bizarre way of navigating a fairly benign and civil disagreement, which I for one found to be quite interesting. But perhaps I am not seeing it very clearly, so I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what I'm missing. Obviously it's not the most important thing, just a little weird, and I guess I would like to be able to express concerns without being shut down or having my discussions collapsed and cordoned off. I was happy to move on from the issue, which is probably something better suited to VP, and I probably wouldn't have raised it here if the thread had at least been left open on the page. Cheers. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
That entire conversation should have ended at the quite correct comment The whole idea of there being "sides" to balance just doesn't rhyme with Wikipedia principles, and I think it's a terrible idea to have such factions be legitimized and given strength through being ad hoc incorporated into procedures for formal discussions, which is exactly what is being done when people start treating WikiProjects like they're political parties to be invited to an election debate. But no, it carried on, and I'm unsurprised that Valereee closed it as "bickering". Black Kite (talk)12:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't agree that there aren't ways in which we can achieve more neutral, non-biased RFC/RM results (though I'm not sure I would accept the "sides" characterization), but I also don't see that as a reason to dismiss concerns as "bickering" and effectively censor them. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
One thing that has served me well, as I can be argumentative sometimes and I know that about myself, is that, if a third party editor closes, collapses or otherwise shuts down an argument I was engaged in at an article talk, I don't re-open it to keep arguing. I don't mean if an admin does this. I mean if any other editor does. Part of collaborative editing on Wikipedia is learning to read the room and learning when to walk away. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I didn't re-open to keep arguing. I just felt that it did not need to be collapsed; I had more than moved on by that point but further discussion was started by another editor. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
As the person who made that comment I suppose I will say something here. For the record: I previously collapsed a section of that discussion involving @Simonm223 and @Wh1pla5h99 as I felt it was rapidly derailing, and it is not visible from the way it currently looks but that part of the discussion between me and Wh1pla5h99 where my quoted comment came from was part of a section that was hatted before the current hat was put into place, with the current hat essentially being an expansion of the original one. At least I think so, I'm not totally sure because when I saw the original hat put into place I realized, while certainly still standing by what I had said, that we were nearing a derailment just like the one I had tried to stop when I collapsed a section, and I promptly thanked the uninvolved editor for the hatting and moved on as I felt it was entirely justified. The hatted part of the discussion wasn't helping the RM and people were getting riled up, and despite the fact I was pretty neutral about moving the article (not to say I don't have opinions on the subject of the RM or whether or not it's "persecution"; I do, but they simply aren't relevant to what the title should be) I do have to admit I too was getting riled up. That was mainly due to how the relatively collegial WP:RM with its generally nice, reasonable regulars was being turned into a circus devoid of any semblance of standard decorum and procedure just because the subject of the RM was emotionally charged, despite the merits of the case being far from unique. I certainly wouldn't call any part of it "benign", and I think any uninvolved editor who boldly attempts to prevent something like that from developing into an even greater mess should be given plenty of leeway. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ15:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I bear absolutely no ill will toward you for collapsing that discussion. We were spinning our wheels there and sometimes it helps for a third party to remind people of that. For what it's worth. Tl;dr you made the right call. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
To be clear, my whole post here concerns the pinging debate at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Pinging. I wasn't actually quoting you, but rather when Valereee told Cdjp1 and I to take the pinging conversation to talk. The earlier hatting is not really related and I didn't bring it up here. I don't know what you mean by "the current hat essentially being an expansion of the original one", as these were two entirely unrelated threads. There was one hat in the RM survey (at least in the thread I participated in), and then two consecutive hats (the ones I am objecting to) in the pinging section. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you felt it was emotionally charged, but, as long as people are being civil and arguing the point, I don't think that is a reason to collapse threads or prevent discussions. I do see that as an overeach, and I don't see where in WP:TPG that kind of behaviour is permitted. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
A neutrally worded notification of a project is not canvassing, whether that project has been added to the talk page header or not. Projects are meant to be groups of editors interested in editing articles that relate to that topic, not groups of editors based on characteristics, so notifying any project shouldn't be biased in anyway. However if editors are concerned they can always notify other projects or noticeboards, as long as those notifications are neutrally worded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
While that may be true about Wikiprojects, that's not what the concern is here. Was the intent of the person who posted at the Wikiproject to elicit more comments from like-minded editors with a similar political leaning. That appears to be the case given the already linked diff in OP's post. So whether or not they were effective at canvassing, it was their intent to canvass.--v/r - TP22:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
@TParis, I think it's possible the editor who notified WikiProject Conservatism both had intended to canvass and didn't realize that wasn't allowed. And also had no idea that notification of WikiProject Conservatism might not actually bring in more conservatives than progressives. Many of these are, unfortunately, inexperienced and kind of clueless editors here. It would be bliss to have a rule that editing in contentious topics needs to be a PERM given only to those who have proved themselves clueful, but alas. Valereee (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
As the editor who pinged Conservatism, yes I do now know about this canvassing rule, and I didn't know about it previously. With that being said, I don't believe the action of what I ended up doing was incorrect, even if the purpose might've been, considering I'd argue Conservatism should've been one of the WikiProjects attached to the talk page regardless. As well, I would like to reiterate I wasn't hoping to switch the conversation from a perfectly neutral discussion to a biased one that favored my perspective. You seem to hold the belief that joining a WikiProject doesn't imply any shared characteristics, which may be a technically correct yet practically incorrect statement, and with this in mind many of the WikiProjects tagged do seem to reflect a much more left leaning side. I again would like to restate that the WikiProject "Wiki Loves Pride" was among those tagged; your point of view would imply that people who join this project are not necessarily people who "love pride", but it's common knowledge that no one who joins these projects would be of the opposite side. With the added context, is what I did truly wrong? I may very well be fully wrong but its hard for me to imagine that we would allow a WikiProject that supports a strong opinion in one direction and have no counterweight to that opinion. ModlordD (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
WikiProjects are a collection of articles about a topic and the editors who maintain them. They aren't social groups. The article topic is perfectly within the scope of Wikiproject "Wiki Loves Pride". You seem to be very confused on the purpose of Wikiprojects. That being said, you're admitting your intention was to bring in more conservative voices. That's clear canvassing. Based on your comments, I'm tempted to propose a topic ban for you under the American Politics general sanctions since you still don't seem to get it.--v/r - TP03:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Take it easy, he has admitted as much and said he was unaware of the no canvassing rule. I think we can be a little forgiving of a minor slip up. Just to play Devil's advocate here, if we had an article titled "Protection of women and girls under the second Trump administration", and the list of wikiprojects attached to the article (and notified about voting) included "Wiki Loves traditional values", and other wikiprojects of a conservative theme, I think people would probably feel that these may not be ideal conditions for achieving neutrality in an article. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
100% disagree. I would definitely put the talk page of WP:Wiki Loves Traditional Values on my watch the minute I became aware of it, and if it was notified of a discussion about Protection of women and girls under the second Trump administration being moved to something more neutral, I'd absolutely go check it out so I could argue that unless RS are calling it "Protection of women and girls" we shouldn't be calling it that either. Plus OF COURSE a project dedicated to improving coverage of traditional values would be interested in that article and should be notified of discussions. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
As in if that were the title rather than "persecution of transgender people...". I believe that you would, but I also believe that most people to join the project would do so because... they love traditional values, and therefore it would be understandable for someone to worry about bias in voting. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Not if they're trying to be neutral instead of political. If they're just here to be political, we can show them the door. The reason someone should be supporting Wiki Loves Traditional Values is to make sure that, for example, Focus on the Family is covered accurately and thoroughly. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
They may well try to be neutral, but people are of course going to vote based on their opinion, at least in part. Perhaps there is no conservative analogy of Pride, which is a political movement, and claiming to "love Pride" (as opposed to say LGBT issues) is inherently a political statement. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
It's not, though. It may be a slightly pointy project name, but the focus of that project is to expand and improve LGBTQ+ content across several Wikimedia projects. Not to make LGBTQ+ content lean left. And people who worry that our coverage of LGBTQ+ content does lean left? They should be joining that project. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, that Pride is not a political movement or that the statement "Wiki Loves Pride" is not a political statement? I would have to disagree with both. If that is indeed the focus of the project, then it might be a good idea to rename it so as to encourage people who may not be fully on board with the political movement to participate. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Pride is shorthand for the various celebrations of LGBTQ+ culture and history in various places. When Wikipedia/Wiki "loves" a topic, it means it tries to cover it more thoroughly/accurately. WP:Wiki Loves Ramadan, for instance. "Loves" is also used for trying to interact with institutions like WP:Wikipedia Loves Libraries and museums. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I think that definition may be incomplete, as contrased with the one given at Pride (LGBTQ culture): the promotion of the rights, self-affirmation, dignity, equality, and increased visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people as a social group. Ramadan on the other hand is not a political movement; I suppose a more apt comparison would be "Wiki Loves MAGA". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
And that definition is incomplete, too, because it doesn't mention parades and other celebrations, which is one of WLP's primary focusses. But under any definition, still not political. The project is to improve coverage of the topic, however the project defines that topic.
And hey, if you want to start a project that is focussed on making sure WP's coverage of the MAGA movement is thorough and accurate, go for it. As you say, your proposed project name would discourage some from putting their name down as members, but there'll be plenty of people watching the talk page.:) Valereee (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I have no interest in that as I have no interest in the MAGA movement. I suppose my view is that if we have wikiprojects oriented around "loving" very popular, present-day political movements, that's one thing. Notifying those groups - and thereby giving them precedence over the community as a whole - in discussions that have the goal of establishing neutrality in a contentious topic or article, where disinterested views are crucial, just doesn't seem like the way to go. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Since you brought up this point again Wh1pla5h99, you have chosen to invent your own definition and scope of what Wiki Loves Pride actually covers as a project, instead of just reading the the description and scope of the WikiProject. How is inventing your own definition to justify your concern with regards to the matter conducive to the discussion at all? As I previously asked are any of the actual things that Wiki Loves Pride does advocacy group activities special to the project or different from what other projects engage in, including many that also run under "Wiki Loves" phrasing or run events using such phrasing? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
I believe I said "apparent advocacy group"; Pride is advocacy. If their activities are done in the name of Pride then yes it is advocacy. The same does not apply to loving things that are not advocacy related. It's great and there's nothing wrong with it 99% of the time. But when neutrality is being questioned, at that point it becomes counterproductive to consult special interest groups. By the way, my idea would be to ban pinging of all wikiprojects to votes in CTOPs, because these votes are generally neutrality related, and people most interested in a CTOP are often the least neutral. The reason these votes are started in the first place is because there is a problem that people most involved in the article are unable to resolve, and so have decided to ask the general community; I think it goes against the spirit of this (and inevitably creates a battlegroundy atmosphere) to ping a load of somewhat-interested groups. As I said earlier, those who are watching the article will see it anyway. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
So as you have not actually provided anything showing that the WikiProject acts in the way you have mused, I take it there is no such evidence to support your invented definition and scope of the WikiProject. So, without such. hemming and hawing about the matter based on such can simply be disregarded. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
If advocacy is part of the name of the wikiproject, and their stated aim is to promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBTQ+ communities, I'm not exactly sure what more you want. I'm bemused as to why you are getting tripped up on the idea that a group that names themselves after an advocacy movement, and whose stated aims are in line with advocacy, might be engaged in advocacy. This is a minor and inconsequential point anyway; I have no need to convince you of it so let's move on. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Your reply seems to indicate that you also don't understand the purpose of Wikiprojects. They are not social clubs of like-minded people. They are a collection of articles under a topic and the people who maintain them.--v/r - TP16:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Re:it's common knowledge that no one who joins these projects would be of the opposite side is incorrect. That may be a commonly held belief among those who haven't given it much thought, but there are any number of reasons someone might watch a project's talk page other than wanting to join that project. Any number of editors who disagree with or are leery of the stated aims of a project might be watching it very closely just to keep up with what it is doing. I doubt all the editors watching WT:WikiProject Fascism are actually fascists. Editors who aren't Russian might closely watch WT:WikiProject Russia. Progressives might watch WT:WikiProject Conservatism. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
If it was a neutrally worded notification from what can you assume the editor intent? Also again that's not what WikiProjects should be. As an example WP:WikiProject Ireland is for editors who want are interests in editing articles about Ireland, not Irish editors. Notifying WikiProject LGBT isn't notifying LGBT editors, or editors who advocate for LGBT individuals. Also having more editors at a discussion is never a bad thing, discussions aren't voting counting. The strength of editors arguments not numbers should be what matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Even if we accept that everyone involved in the LGBT studies or gender studies wikiprojects are there for purely scholastic reasons (which incidentally doesn't preclude the potential for bias), the same clearly cannot be said of a wikiproject called "Wiki Loves Pride". Also I'm not sure how we can seriously argue that vote count doesn't matter. I guess this RM closure will provide some clarity on that though, since people are resting their entire argument on WP:SPADE (not a policy, not really about article content but rather talk page behaviour, and certainly not more important than NPOV). So presumably those will be discounted in the final analysis, which will acknowledge neutrality as paramount. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
WikiProjects aren't "meant to" be groups of editors based on characteristics, but that often ends up being the case in contentious areas. There are wikiprojects that are pretty useful if you want to canvass people who agree with you while maintaining plausible deniability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
If that is the state of certain projects then they should be closed down. Also the thing about plausible deniability is that without anything to show intent it's no different from innocent behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
If you tell me which WikiProjects those are, I'll go add their talk to my watch. If any WikiProject is being used that way, it needs more eyes on it. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
There are a lot of WikiProjects that can be reliably used as a pre-built WP:VOTEBANK on certain topics. It's been years since I looked into it, but WikiProject LGBT was one of these projects, as were most Sports WikiProjects, WikiProject Roads, and probably others I have forgotten. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I collapsed it because it was an argument about canvassing policy (whether notifying WikiProjects qualifies as canvassing, which we generally consider not to be true.) An argument about whether notifying a WikiProject that isn't already listed in the talk header should qualify as canvassing shouldn't be held at an article talk. If it needs to be held, it should be held at an appropriate forum, maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or maybe at Wikipedia talk:canvassing with notifications placed elsewhere. No small group of editors can change or even clarify that policy at an article talk page. So the whole 2000+word digression was extraneous at that discussion, which happens to be at the intersection of two CTOPs, and that made it arguably disruptive. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
In that case I would have been happy if the discussion had simply been closed rather than collapsed. Collapsing seems to suggest that not only should the discussion take place elsewhere but that people should be prevented from reading the discussion, which was a largely civil and stimulating one. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
There's a 'show' button if anyone wants to read it. I can almost guarantee most editors coming into a discussion on a CTOP and seeing a collapsed section will at least click on it to see if there's something juicy there.:) But if you preferred it be closed rather than collapsed, you could just do that and explain in your edit summary. Without getting a last word in first, natch. Valereee (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
What you are missing is that benign philosophical conversations about Wikipedia behavioral guidelines should not occur in the discussion sections of formal discussions (for that matter, they don't really belong at ANI either). That the conversation was so titillating to passersby is exactly the problem (due to aspersions characterizing the noticeboards editors had just been pinged from as ideologically homogeneous forces to be counteracted). The harm caused is distraction from the actual discussion topic and kilobytes for participants to read which are not constructive to the purpose. I apologize that it made you feel silenced, but this was an exactly correct use of WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
BLP vandalism
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MSCGWW makes nonsense articles
Latest comment: 2 months ago39 comments14 people in discussion
I have also advised MSCGWW to respond here at AN, but they seem so far to prefer arguing on their own page. Bishonen|tålk10:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC).
This is MSCGWW. First of all, I find the characterization of myself as arguing unfair- if you refer to my user talk page, you will find me and Bishonen's conversation, which I think is quite civil on my end. Secondly, I would like to make a defense of my pages: they are all subpages of my sandbox, which itself is a subpage of my user page. If you refer to the spammed warnings posted on my user page (which more closely resemble vandalism than my fictional sandbox pages imo), they say "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox", and WP:VANDAL also says "New users sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism." I completely understand the deletion of my uploads to wikimedia commons, however there are no alternatives for uploading images to sandbox pages (which is unfortunate). All in all I belive my sandbox pages should be restored, however I understand the deletion of the images I uploaded to wikimedia commons and I intend not to repeat that mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSCGWW (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
This response is much more concerning than the original creations. MSCGWW, have you read and thoroughly understood WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:WEBHOST? Do you now understand that you should not have been creating those pages? Will you now firmly commit to refraining from creating such pages in the future? --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I really do not appreciate the chastising tone. I have read Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE and Wikipedia:WEBHOST, and do not see how I have violated these articles outside of my conceded point about uploaded images to wikimedia commons. Again, I understand the deletion of my uploads of images to Wikimedia commons and apologize, however I still do not see how my sandbox articles count as vandalism/hoax. Per Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE, my pages are not indefinitely taking up space with outdated or personal information, or disputed content on existing articles (they've only existed for a few days), nor are they egregiously presenting false information as true (the only way to access these pages in the first place was through a hyperlink attached to the word faking.) Furthermore, per Wikipedia:WEBHOST, I am not using these pages for any personal promotion, file storage, dating service, or memorials. Perhaps there is an argument for Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia, except that this creative project is heavily ingrained in and about Wikipedia itself. Regardless, I fail to see any way one can make an objective argument I have violated Wikipedia:UPNOT, which itself is rather self-contradictory and fluid. In some instances, Wikipedia games and in-jokes are acceptable, (see User:Oddmartian2/Wikipedia! the Musical or User:WDGraham/Chess) but in this instance... UNACCEPTABLE!
Once again I'd like to call attention to the fact that these were sandbox pages listed under my personal page, not main line Wikipedia pages. Again, the oldest of these pages was... nine? ten days? Aside from the images, they were a few kb of data. I have not attempted to hoax anyone, nor have I used Wikipedia's servers for hosting egregious amounts of personal data, or really any data at all.
Realistically, I do not expect my pages to be restored or what I am saying to be respected, or even for this message to be read fully and given the time of day. I, along with many other people, see a lot of value in Wikipedia as a creative tool and a community, and that is all I want to argue for. I am disturbed by the aggressiveness, distrustfulness, and curt attitude of many of the Wikipedia editors I've interacted with, not just on this occasion, but in many other instances too. It puts an awful taste in my mouth, someone who's grown up with Wikipedia, who has previously thought it to be one of the only redeemable entities on the internet. MSCGWW (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Maybe stop digging? It's bad enough you've been caught creating hoaxes, and at that point you could and should have put up your hands with a 'fair cop', but instead you're making things worse by wikilawyering. It doesn't matter how old these drafts were, it doesn't matter how much data they used, etc., the fact remains that we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and these are not contributing to that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Again, how is it a hoax?
I am not wikilawyering, at least not intentionally. I am trying to respond to every point with due diligence. My goal in bringing up the age of the pages and the storage space is in demonstrating how ridiculous this whole thing is. MSCGWW (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
At the end of the day you are welcome to feel that Wikipedia's policies are ridiculous, but you still have to follow them. The community has collectively decided that certain kinds of materials are off topic and unwelcome on this site, and personal creative fiction projects are clearly prohibited here. MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, are you seriously trying to argue that content describing a gang of space criminals, a tunnel through the asteroid belt, and terraforming a moon of Jupiter are not hoaxes? Really? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Hoax implies deceit. I never claimed this information was true, and actually went out of my way to label it as fake. MSCGWW —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Propose a topic ban on MSCGWW creating pages in their sandbox. I'm sorry to propose this, but MSCGWW's responses make it clear to me that they see no problem with abusing Wikipedia as a free webhost. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I would request that anyone responding to Yamla's proposal thoroughly read through my posts and the conversation between me and User:Bishonen on my talk page. I am appreciative of further discussion rather than ignoring the content of my previous posts on this matter and immediately penalizing me for defending myself, again I find the curt and aggressive attitude of the editors I've interacted with distasteful. MSCGWW (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
On your talk page you claim that "As for Wikipedia being known for alternate history / fictional articles, you could browse r/AlternateHistory on Reddit for a few minutes and find dozens of examples." So, I've gone to there. There's certainly content formatted to look like its from Wikipedia. But actually, as far as I can tell, it's all mocked up. For example appears to be a screenshot of Kanye West body swap incident, but there is no such article and there never has been. is made to look as if its at "moon race", but a look at the history of that article shows it has always been a redirect to another article. Perhaps you could ask the other users in the subreddit how they are able to achieve these mocks without editing Wikipedia itself. I can think of two obvious possibilities. Morwen (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
They've also got a pinned post that explicitly warns their users not to save alternative history in their sandboxes. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I obviously do not believe the users on r/AlternateHistory create genuine Wikipedia articles, I understand that they largely rely on the sandbox function and photoshop, which, shockingly, is the same thing I do! Except I made the mistake of uploading my photoshopped images to Wikimedia commons (again, I will not repeat this.) I am also not a regular reddit user, I only mentioned this subreddit because it seems to most popular and immediate example of the kind of fictional wikipedia page I was creating, so I was not familiar with r/AlternateHistory's pinned posts. That being said, I still do not understand how I have misused the sandbox function, nor do i see how my use of subpages under my user page is different from the countless others you can find throughout Wikipedia, many of which are fictional, contain personal information or personal promotions, or are otherwise irrelevant to the project of construction an online encyclopedia. I would be happy to provide examples even limited to those editors who have responded to this thread. As far as I can tell, my only true mistakes are uploading irrelevant images to Wikimedia commons, and drawing more attention to myself. MSCGWW (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
To be clear, your (first) mistake was pressing save not preview. Your second mistake is doubling down. If you think there's some lode of other fictional things here (beyond, of course, descriptions of things in notable published fiction) then please let us know where they are so we can look at them. Morwen (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand "would be happy to provide examples even limited to those editors who have responded to this thread"? Morwen (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I would be happy to provide examples of user subpages which "are fictional, contain personal information or personal promotions, or are otherwise irrelevant to the project of construction an online encyclopedia."
As for the editors who have responded to this thread, I believe User:Bishonen is the worst offender, although there are several subpages linked to other editors user pages. Your own userpage contains what is arguably self promotion, though not in any way thats different from my own, or in any way that I think should be punishable.
What I meant by "I ain't no snitch" is that I am not going to reveal the sandbox pages of friends who have created similar fictional pages for themselves.
I commented below in opposition to any sanctions on you but do you not realize that this kind of post reads to uninvolved people as basically “please block me”? Like, surely you can understand the differences between Bishonen (84 thousand edits over 20+ years as an administrator) and yourself that make any attempt at comparison-drawing seem ridiculous? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I am just trying to point out the self contradiction in this whole thing. No one is considering the issue on the merits, but exactly as you said, looking at me as a new-ish user with relatively few edits and those who are arguing with me as veterans, and drawing their conclusions from that. But the actual rules and guidelines provided by Wikipedia are wishy-washy, unspecific and self contradictory. Frankly, I do not care if people block me, as that's better than continued arguments! I am far more interested in explaining myself clearly and arguing my point on its merits than instantly capitulating to others on the internet just because of their seniority and some idea that they'd like me better.
You were right when you said below that I probably won't recreate those pages- I have no intention of pissing people off just to piss them off. However I really think it is a shame that my pages were lost, and this whole experience has been severely off-putting. MSCGWW (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
You do you obviously but there are at least two significant “either X or Y” constructs in this message that miss obvious alternatives.
Yes, Wikipedia rules are not super clear. The way people deal with this is by learning from more experienced editors as they go, not by winning arguments. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
This seems like a tempest in a teapot. The sandboxes have been deleted; I’m sure MSCGWW realizes that if they recreate them or something basically similar, they are likely to be sanctioned. The only ongoing disruption is the contentious arguments happening in this thread, and the best way to solve that is to close it. MSCGWW has made a small number of other edits, and those look broadly productive; hopefully they’ll continue to do that in the future. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
While I vehemently believe Wikipedia should not be a repository for alternative history or speculation about possible future histories I would also concur that, if MSCGWW is going to stop making such articles, then there's no need for any further action. WP:NOTHERE seems a rather extreme reaction and I would strongly oppose an indef on those grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Support TBAN: The tripling and quadrupling down from this editor is extremely concerning. It is quite clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and risk publishing more hoax pages to the site. They should have a read of Alan MacMasters hoax to learn about how damaging this can be. 11WB (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I will once more reiterate: "If you refer to the spammed warnings posted on my user page (which more closely resemble vandalism than my fictional sandbox pages imo), they say "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox", and WP:VANDAL also says "New users sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism." MSCGWW (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @MSCGWW, I'm responding I'm the hope that I can make things a little clearer. The sandbox is for experimenting with content that has a realistic chance of becoming a Wikipedia article - it isn't there for you to create fictional articles/content that has no prospect of getting onto Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST had been quoted to you. You can experiment but there's a common-sense limit to that experimentation.
You're right that it's not vandalism, but it's also not what the sandbox is really there for.
If you're here to create and improve Wikipedia articles then that's great, but it's important to understand why you've been given access to a sandbox in the first place - it's there to practice edits that will improve new and existing Wikipedia articles. Blue-Sonnet14:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I understand and I appreciate this response. I think the provided guidelines and explanations would benefit from communicating this more clearly. I also still think there is a double standard around user subpages, and would appreciate a more relaxed approach towards user and sandbox pages like mine, though I understand this is not the sort of thing Wikipedia is primarily for, nor is it the sort of change that a new-ish user can effect on a platform as large as this. MSCGWW (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
One article in your sandbox could be experimentation to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia. However, your series of fake history articles take this from allowable experimentation to misuse as a webhost. Your statement on your talk page "there is no equal or alternative which I could use to create fictional Wikipedia pages" only makes sense if you shared these. Thus clearly you are using Wikipedia as a webhost in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and not for experiments or test pages covered by your bolded quotes above. KylieTastic (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
"... only makes sense if you shared these." This is a logical jump that I do not quite follow. What I mean by "there is no equal or alternative which I could use to create fictional Wikipedia pages" is that Wikipedia's visual style, navigability, and intuitiveness is unparalleled as a creative tool. MSCGWW (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure how close it would be to Wikipedia, but have you thought about using a Fandom wikia to create alt/fictional history if that's what you're interested in?
You would "run" the wikia yourself and can do whatever you like with it, without the same restrictions you would have here. Blue-Sonnet15:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Yep - since MediaWiki is free and open source, there are lots of places that use the same software! SCP is really good bedtime reading if you want to go down fictional rabbit holes...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Would someone double-check my work on Laura Moodie? I did the history merge, but there are 4 overlapping edits from when it was unclear between editors which page the article should be at. Right now, those 4 edits are all deleted. All of the content edits are present in the history. Is this correct? Rjjiii (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I personally hate doing jagged-edge histmerges like this so wouldn't have done this one in the first place. Given that it was done, though, I restored two edits that didn't need to be deleted at which point it's as done as it can be. * Pppery *it has begun...00:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
@Pppery: Ah, thank you. In the future, would you advise treating cases like this as a regular merge and decline the history merge? Rjjiii (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They disclosed that they have multiple accounts? At the top of their talk page, they state "Welcome (forgot my password for User:SialkotsFinest)". MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
– User has already disclosed the connection between the accounts on their talk page (“forgot my password for User:SialkotsFinest”). No evidence of undisclosed sockpuppetry at this time.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 months ago93 comments28 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is sufficient community consensus to endorseBeland's close of the RFC pertaining to transgender persecution at Talk:Donald Trump. At the same time, I think that there is also a general consensus that the language of the closure is unsatisfactory (not wholly). In terms of unsatisfactory verbiage, there is some consensus amongst participants to the exclude the sentences as pointed out by Chaotic Enby. While I also recognize some dissenting opinions that are related to the last paragraph as a whole, there is an insufficient consensus for removal or new verbiage. In accordance with community consensus, the closing statement is amended to exclude those sentences. As to the question of whether opinions of the closer can or should be included in an RFC closing statement is not pertinent to this closure review and should be addressed in a separate discussion or RFC. --qedk (t愛c)01:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Reasoning: Actual discussion of close happened at WP:NPOV/N. I didn't think it would be best form to re-initiate the discussion with Beland a second time at their user talk page when we'd already exhausted the discussion. Grounds for review:
Under-weighting of the significance of expert opinion.
Over-adherence to a strict wording when there are multiple competing euphemisms but where "Persecution" is the clearest gloss.
Final paragraph of closure is non-policy compliant and sets a dangerous precedent by proposing that Wikipedia should adjust content in order to avoid alienating readers whose politics don't align with established scientific consensus. Specifically the statement was, But as some participants pointed out, a significant portion of our readers think that these policies are helping trans people get over some sort of recoverable delusion or social contagion. Much as I think that point of view is hurtful and ignorant and dangerous, I do want those people to keep reading Wikipedia and trust its content and learn more facts about Donald Trump and trans people.
Being honest, while I do think this closure contained several mistakes in assessing consensus I would be personally satisfied even if the no !vote was maintained if the final paragraph of the closure comment was formally struck. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The decision about word choice here was made by following a clear pattern of reliable sources not using the phrase "persecution" when they are speaking in an objective voice, reinforced by numerical superiority of participants.
The last paragraph in this close does not explain how the decision was made, but rather is just a personal aside to people who are about to write a strongly worded complaint about the outcome on spurious grounds because it was emotionally unsatisfying. (This is not to say there can't be legitimate complaints.) It should not be read as setting a precedent or binding on anyone, and people are free to disagree and have a different philosophy of neutrality.
I agree with the people writing complaints that neutrality includes respecting the due weight of reliable sources, and confronting readers with the facts, even if it makes them uncomfortable. As far as I can tell, we are doing that in this case. When deciding whether to be mad about the outcome, I ask well-meaning advocates to consider the actual consequences - using neutral language may mean more readers with what we would consider incorrect and harmful views are actually exposed to the facts. And I personally think that is and should be part of the purpose of the neutrality policy - generating trust in Wikipedia by not using unnecessarily biased language. There are two reasons we don't say "state-sanctioned murder" instead of "capital punishment" or "death penalty", even though some would argue that the first term is accurate. 1.) It's not what the vast majority of reliable sources say in objective voice, and 2.) among the terms that are equally accurate, we use editorial discretion to try to pick those that readers on any given side will not perceive as biased. It's fair to disagree over what that means in practice for any given case, as did the participants in this RFC. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Non-participants (Trump)
While I don't disagree with the consensus found by the closer, I strongly disagree with the method, and am worried about the precedent that it might set regarding our interpretation of NPOV. The exact sentences in the close I am having issues with are:
But as some participants pointed out, a significant portion of our readers think that these policies are helping trans people get over some sort of recoverable delusion or social contagion. Much as I think that point of view is hurtful and ignorant and dangerous, I do want those people to keep reading Wikipedia and trust its content and learn more facts about Donald Trump and trans people.
This is not a way to write an encyclopedia. NPOV is about fairly assessing and representing reliable sources, and a bias in favor of what will please the most readers is still a bias, and will not make Wikipedia more trustful in any way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Agree with Chaotic Enby - that phrasing makes me uncomfortable and I've been trying to figure out why & how to put it into words. It's a little like POV cosplaying as NPOV; there is an element of conspiracy theory when it comes to the Trump administration, so saying that we've based our decision on "tricking" them into reading Wikipedia (I know it's not tricking them, but it could easily be seen that way by the distrustful) isn't something I feel we should do.
Almost every large website bases their content on what will get the biggest audience, I stay here because that's not what Wikipedia is about. Our decisions should be based on real vs. not real, true vs. not true, provable vs. unprovable - follow where the evidence (reliable sources combined with our policies) lead us. Clear, open and transparent decisions for all to see, with no preference for any belief or background. Blue-Sonnet13:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Also agree with the above. The consensus was found correctly but it takes some reading to see what's actually being factored in. I think most of us agree that something being believed by lots of Trumpists, or any other partisan group, is not a valid metric in an RfC even if the belief were true, and I don't believe that Beland was considering this as an actual factor in the close. In his own words, these were a few thoughts before I get a slew of complaints that this outcome is a crime against the dignity and human rights of trans people. My suggestion would be that in contentious RfCs, closers make it clearer what portion of the close is a summary of the votes and what portion is commentary about the close's context, implementation, and implications. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Time for the usual comment, but it applies I stress that I am not accusing Beland of transphobia here (they made their stance quite clear) but the comment But as some participants pointed out, a significant portion of our readers think that these policies are helping trans people get over some sort of recoverable delusion or social contagion replace the word "trans" with "gay" or "black". Now how does it look? Here at enwiki we are really bad at making excuses for transphobes. They need to be in the same bucket as racists, misogynists and homophobes and have no place here. Black Kite (talk)14:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and this should have been closed as no consensus because a very large number of the "No" !votes are completely evidence-free. Black Kite (talk)14:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
If you replaced it with "gay" or "black" it would not be true that a "significant portion" of readers believe it (or, in the latter case, it wouldn't make any sense). Here's an interesting question - say it was the 50s and a good chunk of people still believed homosexuality was a choice or something that people could "get over", would it be ok to disregard their opinion completely when figuring out how to express something "neutrally"? I take it that you would say yes, but can you see how this might raise eyebrows in a project that brands itself as neutral. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
You'd be surprised what percentage of people don't believe that sexual orientation is not a choice. But my point was a semantic one - by writing things like this we are making excuses for transphobes. ArbCom managed to detoxify the area a little by banning some of the worst offenders, but Wikipedia still treats it as somehow "different" from the other behaviours that we deal with above, and we need to make it clear that it isn't. Black Kite (talk)14:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Meh. Just my view but let people have different opinions. No need for an inquisition any time someone makes a claim that could be construed as making excuses for transphobes. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Trans people are not an opinion. I think your above statement is extremely hurtful. It essentially reduces people's humanity to a debatable subject. In the same way it is disgusting to spread the "opinion" that, idk, the shoah was good (or the "belief" it did not happenfor that matter) transphobia is, in my view, not just a "view" or "opinion". Beland did not do this, but I just want to have said that I totally reject "let people have different opinions" when it comes to dehumanising "opinions" or ones that, indeed, contribute to persecution. Slomo666 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that people should be welcome to spew hate on here, but that if people are (thoughtfully, in good faith, and with a willingness to listen to other people) expressing their opinion, then we should not simply kick them out for fear of any offense such opinions may cause. Again, this is just my view. Censoring anything that has the potential to offend any person or group would make this quite an unproductive endeavor. For example, I'm sure ample offense is caused to religious people when they are met with skepticism about their beliefs, yet such skepticism is indispensable to this project. In any case, this is a tangent that I don't think we need to hash out right here and now, and as such I will preemptively agree to disagree and move on. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't agree with your characterisation, but if it had been as simple as you frame it, then I would gladly agree with you. My issue is how, in my view, you make light of this. I will gladly acccept your invitation to Agree to disagree. Thanks for your response anyways, happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I am gay and have some conservative religious in-laws who did start out believing homosexuality was a choice, with horrific you're-banned-from-the-house, I-don't-want-to-know-your-name homophobia, not in the 1950s but the 1990s. Through repeated and sometimes unwanted exposure to LGBT people like me, they have gained a lot of empathy and are now warmly welcoming and try to use respectful language. I don't know how differently they speak when I'm not around, but I definitely change my language when I'm around them to avoid unnecessarily upsetting them, including not swearing.
I do try to give some grace for the sake of continuing a conversation. One thing people really hate is to be constantly corrected in the language they use even when they mean no disrespect, and that can derail a conversation on the grounds that political correctness or wokeness has gone overboard and is obnoxious, and even allies make that complaint sometimes. So I might hear "women" used to mean "cisgender women" and not stop to correct it but I would reply with the latter as a reminder of and exposure to the idea that trans women are considered women. I don't make excuses for their homophobia and transphobia, and when they referred to sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice" or someone's gender identity as "pretending they are a woman" I try to correct their perceptions by relaying my personal experience or those of LGBT+ friends and others. I think this approach is working. I had a good conversation with my mother-in-law about whether she ever "decided" she was straight, and learned some interesting things about how sexual attraction works differently for different people. And another about how gender seems to be an indelible feature of some brains, exemplified by the large percentage of intersex people who do not identify with the gender they were raised as, even if they appear physically gender-conforming because of genital surgery as infants. This is not the sort of information she gets at church or from her conservative friends and family. We still have to make the case about racial language; their religion only started allowing black people to become full members in 1978. ("I'm pretty sure you can't refer to African-American areas as 'the hood'." "But that's what my students called it!" "You are white and they are black." "That's racist.") You're right that racial acceptance is a lot farther along than trans acceptance, but not meeting people where they are isn't necessarily going to advance either cause.
I can't think of any LGBT-related terminology that I change, but I do change how I refer to the President and the Trump Administration. At home I might say "the regime" or simply "Voldemort", but that would cause immediate eye-rolling and derail any political conversation I was having with my conservative relatives (which do happen...sometimes in a civil fashion; I remember a good one about how their family would benefit from universal health insurance). To my shock, despite a lot of almost involuntary Obama- and Biden-bashing, one of them started referring to Trump as "the crazy man" in his second term.
I know there are folks who would prefer to be more confrontational and use language only from the "right" side and that's fine and not always unhealthy for our society, but it seems like an approach better suited to a street protest than the calm and academic pages of an avowedly neutral encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and of course I agree with all of it apart from the last line. I don't think we actually need to be "confrontational" to maintain neutrality, but my point was that by even giving any wiggle room to people who want to introduce their biases into an encyclopedia because "a lot of people think like this" we are actually reducing our neutrality. I know a lot of people (mostly the same people that I've just mentioned) roll their eyes at the phrase "safe spaces" but we do need to consider how trans people view editing Wikipedia if we are not strict on calling out transphobia, or even language that normalises transphobia. I don't believe you did the latter, incidentally, but it doesn't take much for people to seize upon it and say "well, yes I said that, but..." Black Kite (talk)19:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I know there are folks who would prefer to be more confrontational and use language only from the "right" side and that's fine and not always unhealthy for our society, but it seems like an approach better suited to a street protest than the calm and academic pages of an avowedly neutral encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but you're arguing against a strawman here. The criticism against the close doesn't come from people wanting to use the language from the "right" side (in fact, relatively few here disagree with the result of the close), but that neutrality doesn't come from finding the lowest common denominator between readers. Neutrality isn't writing what will please the most people, it is checking what the sources actually say. A populist bias is still a bias. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Following what the sources actually say in objective voice is in fact what determined the outcome of this RFC. The last paragraph in my close message was just pointing out that a byproduct of doing that is transphobic people and Trump supporters are now more likely to read more about this topic, and hoping that thought helps being on the losing side feel less bad. Is it that this thought instead makes some people angry?
I will say that in other cases, though, checking the reaction from partisans is quite helpful. For example, a few years ago a dispute arose over whether Puerto Rico and other territories are part of the United States. Is it an integral part? A colony? A possession? A nation? Occupied territory? Reliable geographical and technical and legal sources are kind of all over the place, as are political opinions. Which aspect of belonging should we base our language on, potentially elevating it in importance? For the purposes of the lede to the article United States, editors negotiated the phrase "asserts sovereignty over", which is acceptable for people from all of these points of view. I would generally think that objectionable wording is worth changing, as long as it doesn't create another problem, like inaccuracy compared to sources or objections from a different point of view or the gratuitous use of unfamiliar words. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
What Whonting wrote below inspires a bit of clarity: one aspect of neutrality is accurately describing facts or opinions following due weight in reliable sources. If people stop reading because we do that well, that's their problem. Another aspect is when we are describing facts in wikivoice, choosing language that sounds objective to people from a diversity of viewpoints, to avoid the perception we are speaking from a particular POV. If people stop reading because we do that badly, it's our fault. -- Beland (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Another aspect is when we are describing facts in wikivoice, choosing language that sounds objective to people from a diversity of viewpoints The problem is that these are two ultimately incompatible goals: either we stick to wikivoice and reflect the words use by the sources, or we choose to be more cautious about using wikivoice and tone down our wording to sound objective to more people. To take a (slightly) more extreme example, what about young Earth creationists, who represent 40% of the US population? Should we say that T. rex is "claimed by evolutionary scientists" to have lived 68 to 66 million years ago, to avoid angering them? There is a difference of degree, but, I believe, not really of principle. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree we should not say that. The first aspect always takes precedence. It's certainly worthwhile to tell our readers how those dates have been determined and be honest about the uncertainty. Our article Tyrannosaurus already does the latter; I just added a link to Geochronology to do the former. I've had sidewalk arguments with young-Earth creationists, and one of the things they'll tell you is that the dinosaur skeletons seen in museums are fake. For the sake of intellectual honesty with all our readers but also credibility with this demographic, it behooves Wikipedia to note which skeletons were really found as-is, which are pieced together from multiple finds, and which are partial or complete copies or recreations. I just tweaked some captions on the T. Rex article to do that; the article Sue (dinosaur) does a good job of explaining which parts are a reconstruction and why.
As far as word choice specifically, I think a good example is our article Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth. It's an interesting collection of facts for lots of different audiences, but one demographic that relies on it is people who have flat earth beliefs or uncertainty, and others having discussions with them. Using the word "empirical" instead of "scientific" is a deliberate choice. For this demographic, it can avoid a whole debate on what science is, what are legitimate scientific methods, and a whole bunch of conspiracy theories about how scientists are a cabal protecting the secret of the true shape of the planet. Those are all beside the point of the facts the article is trying to convey - that when people go out and observe these things, these are the results they get. Some flat earthers value that type of information, and a few actually go out and take observations of their own. -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:OUTRAGE clearly says that we have no responsibility for how neutral content we write is generally perceived, which is exactly my point: we shouldn't bend what sources say to be more palatable to the average reader. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
But if content is perceived as neutral, then whatever bending has to take place has already happened. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I meant this more as an expression of "one of our guiding principles is we care about not alienating readers, so when possible try to meet them where they are". In that section, it is argued that "writing neutrally consistently" will best accomplish that, but doing so is not at odds with other manifestations of writing neutrally (e.g., as a rule not putting normative claims in wikivoice). Whonting (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
One more in support of the close conclusion except for those sentences. Kudos to Beland otherwise, this was a tough, charged RFC, and we shouldn't hold those few sentences against them, much. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I think there is a core of a good point in the controversial part of Beland's close, even if I don't entirely agree with how Beland expressed it. There is some value to the appearance of neutrality, which is a distinct concept from NPOV (which, really, shouldn't have the word "neutral" in it at all, since what we actually mean is consensus POV, which is often non-neutral). The appearance of neutrality is never a strong enough consideration to justify asserting falsehood as truth or truth as disputed; we can't say "the Earth is probably round but might be flat" just to make the flat-Earthers happy. But when it comes to how we characterize politically loaded topics, I do think there is something to be said for considering whether the reader is going to say "Huh, I sure don't feel like I'm reading a neutral Wikipedia article right now. I feel like someone's trying to convince me of something, when I come here to get the facts and reach my own conclusions."That's one of a few reasons that these RfCs over word choice often bring out the worst in Wikipedians, because they conflate the substantive question with the stylistic one. Beland's close errs inasmuch as it implies (maybe unintentionally) that there is any reasonable debate on the substantive question, which is whether Donald Trump persecutes trans people; even a diehard Trump supporter would acknowledge all the necessary facts to conclude "yes" and might only disagree with the word choice. But the word choice, the stylistic question of whether "persecute" is the right word for Wikipedia to use, is not insignificant. Adolf Hitler's article does not use the word "persecute" or "persecution" in the encyclopedia's voice at any point. Joseph Stalin's does so just once, in passive voice, regarding persecution of clerics during the Soviet cultural revolution. Even our article on Nero, the historical figure I'd most associate with the word "persecution" specifically (as opposed to genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.), only uses the word in quotes or paraphrases. As such, I think it's reasonable to say that, on a stylistic level, describing a politician's actions as persecution generally exceeds the level of emotion readers expect in Wikipedia articles, and that this is, again, not on its own enough to motivate a particular close, but not an invalid concern either, and one worth mentioning in an RfC clearly heavily effected by the emotive weight of that word.I'd really like to see a communal push toward less emotive word choice in political articles—one coming from a place of caring about good article-writing, and not just the objections of the losing side in various ideological disputes, which for good reason the community will always take with a shaker of salt. I think a few high-profile "wins" for one side or another in such articles have emboldened people. But the thing that gets us the trust of our readers is their sense that we give the facts for them to make their own opinions. For me, as someone who's been more a reader than an editor the past few months, it jumps out to me the moment that it feels like a Wikipedia article is trying to lead me to a conclusion. Above all else it insults my intelligence: If the conclusion is true (which, again, it is here), then I should be able to reach that on my own based on the facts of the matter. And if I actually were too stupid or too biased to reach the correct conclusion, there's no reason to think that telling me the correct opinion will sway me. I think that's often how people with strong political views think other people think, but in my experience the exact opposite is often true.Anyways, endorse. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Did people agree somewhere that rather than actually being neutral, Wikipedia was merely supposed to have the appearance of neutrality? This is news to me as someone who has not been involved for very long. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm very confused where you get "merely" from this when I've gone out of my way to stress that the appearance of neutrality is a separate concern from (the thing we somewhat misleadingly call) neutrality. Wikipedia articles should reflect the consensus point of view and, when it does not conflict with that objective, should be written in a way that readers will perceive as neutral. Style is always secondary to substance. There absolutely are cases where an emotive word is necessary, for instance in calling a genocide a genocide if that's the consensus term. But I haven't seen any good argument that this is such a case. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I think you are wrong that Wikipedia articles should reflect the consensus point of view. That is not one of the purposes of striving for consensus among editors. We should try to reach a consensus about how to express something neutrally, not how to express something in a way that we personally or collectively like, or is closest to our collective perspective. Forgive me if I'm wrong about what you mean by "consensus POV", but I don't see what else it could mean, if it is distinct from NPOV, which you reject. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Consensus POV as in the POV that is the consensus among reliable sources. We call it "neutral point of view" for kind of arcane historical reasons; I don't reject the NPOV policy, I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that that's not what "neutrality" means when most people say it. It's good that Wikipedia is not neutral in the way most people mean. A truly neutral Wikipedia wouldn't be able to say that the Earth is round or that the Holocaust happened. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I think that when there is consensus about facts in reliable sources then we present that consensus-fact as a fact rather than a POV. I don't think this extends to opinions (per WP:OPINION), which should always be attributed. In other words, there are some things that are not matter-of-fact based (they are unprovable, immaterial, emotional etc.), and we should not present those things in the same way we present historic or scientific facts. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, we do not, but we also don't attribute literally everything that is subjective, and I think we'd spin out of control if we had to. Slomo666 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Well said, Tazmin. I think combining that with Wh1pla5h99's earlier formulation which I also find clarifying, I'd say Wikipedia aims to present external-consensus facts in language generally perceived as neutral, to take a neutral position when there is no external consensus on the facts, and to describe opinions but for the sake of neutrality not assert them in wikivoice, and our idea of a neutral balance opinions is to convey due weight rather than create a false balance. Is that a better nutshell for WP:NPOV than the current one: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."? Maybe it's too complicated, or maybe the concept is just inherently complex, or maybe I'm too easily distracted. -- Beland (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the core goal of avoiding loaded language (which we, in a way, already do through Wikipedia:Words to watch). Having it be a separate concept altogether from NPOV is essential, as this is a separate question from evaluating source consensus, and we don't want one to bleed into the other. I really like the way you worded this as appearance of neutrality, and would be happy with anyone making it an essay, although I can already foresee the "Wikipedia openly admits they want to hide their non-neutrality!!!" criticism from some people. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't know if I would call WP: LABEL which is a sub section of words that may introduce bias a separate concept from NPOV. It seems it is a guideline to make sure we are in line with NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
@Tamzin, do you think as a general rule Wikipedia should not be putting normative claims in wikivoice? Persecute for instance has connotations of unfairness: is it appropriate for wikivoice to say things are fair or unfair? Whonting (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
No comment about the rest of the close, but those final sentences are not anything I could sign on with. I find the "cosplaying as NPOV" criticism to be appropriate. Furthermore, it seems to me rather naive to expect that anyone who is truly upset with Wikipedia, or animated by a personal transphobic conviction, to be mollified by our tweaking word choices. People who want to be upset will find things to be upset about. People who cash in by making others upset will find things for their audience to be upset about. You can try to avoid a verbal minefield, but people acting in bad faith will just lie about what you say. It was true for creationists on Usenet 30 years ago, it was true for antivaxers on the blogosphere 20 years ago, and it's true for transphobes now. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse the close. It is clear what Beland's opinion is, and it is quite separate from the summary of the discussion and the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the summary, which is based on the discussion. The review requested just suggest a disagreement with the consensus outcome. No need to change anything about the close: on Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Transgender_persecution?. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse largely per Tamzin and the concurring comments. I too might have worded things a bit differently, but IMO Beland substantively got it right and deserve credit for their handling of a high voltage discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse close, IMO wording used in the last paragraph wasn't ideal (or "bad" per se) but it was closed correctly & I don't have any other concerns. Blue-Sonnet01:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse, with caveats. Now, had I participated in this !vote, I doubt I could have lodged a straight support or oppose. Because, personally, I think it should be possible to thread the needle between using more muted/conservative variations on language summarizing mainstream views of the character and motivation of the social suppression at work here, while at the same time heavily leveraging the more express language about persecution through attributed statements, representing the WP:PROPORTION honestly enough so as to emphasize that this is a broadly accepted and well received interpretation of the behaviour of the subject, his administration and its political allies. This would allow us to preserve editorial credibility in wikivoice, without risking problematic sanitizing of the underlying topic. Now, is this approach consistent with what consensus adopted in the discussion, or how Beland summarized that consensus? Well, certainly there were some !votes which echo some of the tent-poles of my position, and you could argue that the close is not directly inconsistent with a "less contentious label, except where attributed" approach. But I do think that, for all its length, Beland's precise wording in that close did fail to address some of the nuance I would have liked to have seen. However, fidelity with what I think is the obvious approach to the problem under policy, after the discussion has run, is not the relevant test for whether or not Beland's close was a reasonable distillation of consensus. The overall feedback was to apply the precautionary principle to to summary verbiage in the forward-facing content. That was the reality with which Beland had to contend. Did they also stamp a bit of their own view on the close? Yes, unfortunately, I think they did--to a degree where I think they need to be more careful about that the next time they decide to close such a heavily disputed discussion. But ultimately, the close was also consistent with the more heavily-represented views. And personally, my view is that when we are talking about an interpretation of existing policy/broader community consensus upon which reasonable minds may disagree, then the closer inherits more responsibility to adhere more strictly towards the more numerically advantaged position. That is to say, this is pretty far from a case where the "no" !votes were so obviously and completely out of step with longterm/community level consensus that Beland could have eschewed the popular view, even if they wanted. The view they summarized was both the slightly more well-represented one and also a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what the relevant PAGs require in this situation, though hardly the only one. To those who feel there is a threat of whitewashing here: I am sympathetic, and rest assured, none of this goes one whit towards changing my own view of the reprehensibility of the behaviour and policies in question, the animus behind it all, or the profound human and societal costs. But 1) sometimes the words chosen by the good humanitarian and the good encyclopedian are not going to be the same, and 2) to the extent anyone might want to argue they should be in this case, that argument did not prevail in the consensus, and the close only reflects that reality. SnowRise let's rap08:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse The close was fine. Sure, it could have been worded differently but most things could be expressed with more appropriate language. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse The closing statement would've been better and less controversial without the last paragraph, but if editors are allowed to give personal opinions like that as part of their RfC closure, then I guess it's fine. Some1 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse— The close is fine (e.g., on issues of interpreting wikivoice/NPOV policy), but the last paragraph wasn't a choice I would have made, because parts of it feel clearly contradictory to WP:CENSOR. Regardless of the personal beliefs of the readers, the critical point of NPOV is that we cover things, well, neutrally/objectively as based on sources. People trust us—I trust us—to be an unfeeling tome of knowledge independent of preconceived notions or sensibilities. --slakr\talk/20:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Participants (Trump)
As a non-admin, I agree that Beland (whom I respect and in no way intend to attack by making critiques here) prioritized perception of neutrality over actual neutrality (by under-weighing expert opinion in sources in the discussion) based on the aforementioned quote and from subsequent WP:NPOV/N discussion comments. For example, he said WP:NPOV does not contemplate the political consequences of our content, only the perception of neutrality by readers. My impression is that a significant consideration in closing note's decision to use the wording "restrict" instead of "persecute" was how "restrict" is less likely to be perceived as biased (even if the term more accurately summarizes expert consensus than "restrict"). While I'm okay with RfCs not going my way, the reasoning behind the close didn't sit well with me either and I think a re-evaluation of the closing decision is due given the reasoning behind the original close. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Not alienating readers was given in the close as a reason for having a neutrality policy, not the reason for the RfC result. Beland also wrote the sources presented do not support that claim. This word is used in opinion pieces or attributed to third parties, but rarely or never used in objective news voice. If you are taking issue with the idea that we should accommodate readers with different points of view on Wikipedia (hardly a scorching hot take) then a close review is probably not the place for that. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The issue is that the non-alienation paragraph specifically advocates for us to downplay the language surrounding pseudoscience over concerns of perceived neutrality. This, as a precedent, would be disastrous not just for our coverage for the attempts of the Trump administration to exterminate trans people but also for things like our coverage of COVID-19, autism and vaccine safety, climate change and several other topics where there is a political argument that is out of touch with the science. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The RfC had nothing to do with pseudoscience, and that's not at all the point he was making. He was offering thoughts on why being neutral is a good idea, and certainly not "disastrous" as you claim. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The paragraph at issue explicitly references "social contagion" as a viewpoint to avoid alienating. That's pseudoscience. It was in the closing statement. This is the issue before us. Pseudoscience is the central reason for this closure challenge. Like maybe you missed the several times myself and other editors have said that the reason to review the close is more about that para than the no !vote. There's a very good reason why.Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
People believe in unproven hypotheses all the time. I don't see that as a reason to censor those views on talk pages, pretend no one expressed them in RfC discussion etc. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Woah your comment just metamorphosed. I'm in favour of people disagreeing without trying to have opposing views banished, if that's what you mean. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm more than a little surprised by this. Pseudoscience is... well, fake by definition, so accepting an inherently contradictory position for the sake of extending inclusivity to those with opposing views seems extremely misguided if our goal is to write an accurate Wikipedia. And I'm not trying to censor you here but I don't consider this point to be debatable. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with extending inclusivity to those with opposing views being extremely misguided, on NPOV grounds among many other reasons. For example if someone said "puberty blockers are definitely safe, fully reversible, and improve outcomes" I would certainly no try to have them silcenced on Wikipedia (or anywhere), though I may believe their ideas to be scientifically unfounded. And if people aren't trying to pass their views of as science there is really no reason to reach for the "pseudoscientific" hand wave. Its a disagreement. We don't have all the facts on everything. The world is a complicated place. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Of course. I was referring to what people can and can't express on talk pages; what ends up in an article is a separate issue. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
No one is really advocating for banning content on talk pages in this discussion. It's about the close, which was flawed because it gave weight to pseudoscientific arguments. Simple as that. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Not really, it explained that the word was not neutral, and then made a case for neutrality being worthwhile. If you want to argue that neutrality is not worthwhile because many millions of people hold views that ought to be disregarded then fine, but at least be accurate about what the issue is. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
If you want to argue that neutrality is not worthwhile because many millions of people hold views that ought to be disregarded then fine This is the bandwagon logical fallacy. We do not write articles based on opinion polling - we write them based on RS, and RS do not promote pseudoscience. Wikipedia only uses RS, so it does not use pseudoscience. Please listen to what others here are saying: pseudoscience is never to be conferred credibility on Wikipedia. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing how calling a view hurtful and ignorant and dangerous is conferring credibility to it. By just acknowledging that it exists? Also this was said in a talk page not an article. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that his and your view is that we should alienate people who hold such a viewpoint. I think we are going round in circles now. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing how calling a view hurtful and ignorant and dangerous is conferring credibility to it. Closing an RfC on the basis of seeking to avoid alienating pseudoscience confers credibility to pseudoscience in the process. That is why a group of editors here is arguing Beland's closing note was problematic. Please read what we have told you and think about it carefully. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The point is that we shouldn't be thinking about that at all. Wikipedia isn't meant to be popular, it's meant to be accurate. (By "thinking", I mean openly stating it was a factor in the decision, which also risks legitimising it) Blue-Sonnet16:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
If you are arguing that the purpose of neutrality is not to have people of different beliefs read/trust the content of Wikipedia (which was Beland's framing), then fair enough. I would say it is one reason among many for a neutrality policy. Other reasons are that people would be excluded/discouraged from collaborating based on their views, that presenting opinions as facts is unencyclopedic and dimishes credibility, etc. The original NPOV policy statement gives reasons like avoidance of edit warring, and also that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this is conducive to our readers' feeling free to make up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I guess my position is more that, by openly stating it in the decision, we're drawing attention to it and inadvertently putting us on one side or the other, depending on the reader and their perception/view of the subject - current US politics is such a hot-button topic that IMO it's best to just not go there and stick to objective & clear facts that everyone can see on the page in front of them.
The more you add, the more can be misconstrued & twisted - especially if you say you want to aim the content at a specific audience. They'll ask "why are you doing that?
What's in it for you? Why don't you want the other side? Why you you singling us/them out for special treatment? What's your agenda?"
If we stick to policy, facts and neutrality - regardless of reader or subject - we have a much better chance of true objectivity. That way, the truth can speak for itself. Blue-Sonnet18:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I basically agree with everyone in the non-participants section that the result of the close was fine (I'd rather the consensus ran the other way, but it clearly didn't), but the language of the close was not, especially the final paragraph. Loki (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Even up at the top I said I was more concerned about the last para of the review then the actual !vote that it was closed to so I'd say, as the opener of the challenge, I also agree with the non-participants. Like if it turned out that the close was overturned as a result of this I'd not say no to it but what I am really looking for, and why I opened the review, was that paragraph of the close note. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the discussion but I appreciate your efforts here.
The "yes" side argued NPOV does not apply or favors "persecution" because lots of reliable sources use the word "persecution" in an equivalent way to wikivoice, considering this dispute settled or at least giving weight to use of that term. But looking at the context of how the word is used, the sources presented do not support that claim. This word is used in opinion pieces or attributed to third parties, but rarely or never used in objective news voice
I don't recall a significant portion of editors stating NPOV "doesn't apply", at least not in the sense that this seems to imply, but that may only be my perception of it. With articles such as Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany for example, we have the benefit of many years of hindsight, yet still so few experts, and the fact that the Nazi's lost the war didn't hurt either. It was not until the 1970s that gay Holocaust victims would start speaking out and receiving public acknowledgement. I'm also reminded of the Gay agenda and how the Anti-gender movement was criticized for encouraging discrimination, undermining human rights protections, and promoting misinformation and rhetoric against LGBTQ people. The notion of a pervasive and institutionalized "gender ideology" is all about creating the effect of a moral panic and conspiracy theory. We all know what makes this article so exceptional, and at least giving the appearance of best intentions, towards "making X great". I do not begrudge anyone here in particular, perhaps I'm even a bit jealous of those that do not bear such weight. As the Buddhists say the only permanence is impermanence. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I think that's important for those editors who have used this RfC to seek the erasure of the Trump regime's persecution of trans people from other articles to remember. This RfC represents a local consensus on a single page and I hope the closer will at least confirm that they did not expect it to be binding on the entire project. Simonm223 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, the close itself points out the inconsistency with the title of Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration and leaves "any resolution of the inconsistency to future discussion." Editors may consider the findings of this RFC to be persuasive with regard to other articles, or not. It's out of scope of the closed discussion to conclude that other discussions came to an incorrect conclusion; there may be additional evidence and reliable sources raised in other discussions which support using the term "persecution" in general or in specific contexts (such as discussing a controversy over the term). -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
The last paragraph honestly was such an extreme case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, it was horrifying. By the logic displayed there, neutrality means we have to find the middleground between whether covid vaccines and sick masks are good or not, or whether climate change is real; even when the exact anti-trans beliefs Beland sought to appeal to in stating But as some participants pointed out, a significant portion of our readers think that these policies are helping trans people get over some sort of recoverable delusion or social contagion. Much as I think that point of view is hurtful and ignorant and dangerous, I do want those people to keep reading Wikipedia, have already been declared FRINGE at FTN.Snokalok (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
That discussion declared a specific organization fringe, which also subscribes to anti-vax ideas, etc. -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Neutrality is about avoiding stating opinions in Wikivoice entirely, and sticking to facts. It is not about finding a conciliatory "middle ground" between opinions. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Well put. It also means when stating facts, to choose our language carefully so as not to appear to be speaking from a specific opinionated point of view. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
(Not sure if I should be in (non-)participants or here) I agree with many of the criticisms posted here. To me, the last paragraph struck a nerve too. I don't think that is what neutrality on wikipedia is meant to mean. The second paragraph, imo, implied a bit too much (IMO) that volume of !votes is a deciding factor, which means Voting rather than !voting. I want to point out I actually appreciate the penultimate paragraph a lot, however. That said, the reason I am here is actually very different: I would like to ask Beland why he did not close as "No Consensus" for (among others) the reasons I stated during the RfC. This entire RfC was the result of a link to the Persecution of transgender people under the second trump administration article in the lede (which some have stated should never have been there to begin with). Why not simply close the RfC to allow the discussion there to be finished first? The current outcome leads to an inconsistency between the articles that cannot be explained. If the term is banned here, it certainly should not be an article title there. (and vice versa: if the article title is sustained there, this RfC's outcome makes no sense, or reference should only be removed from the lede (I think that would be better anyways)) The outcome of whichever RfC was to close first would prejudice the other RfC. Now we've made the RfC there so much messier. I reiterate myself: I think the discussion should have been centralised. This was a bad RfC. Happy editing everyone, Slomo666 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I did not close as "no consensus" because the consensus was clear. As far as I know, there wasn't a discussion about moving Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration active at the time I closed this RFC. The previous one had already concluded and failed to move. A new one has been opened after this RFC closed. As I stated in the close, there are different NPOV rules for titles vs. article prose, and I did not think it was in the scope of my job as closer to rule on whether the two must be consistent. If two different RFCs on two different pages come to conflicting decisions, I think it's reasonable to have a third discussion where participants from both are invited, if the closer of the second one can't see an obvious reason why the first one was incorrect.
I'm not sure why it matters whether numerical superiority or alignment of sources with arguments is more important if they both point in the same direction. "Reliable sources say" are not magic words; I do feel comfortable overriding a numerical majority if the cited sources straightforwardly do not support what they claim they support. That was not necessary in this case. -- Beland (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
My mistake. I misremembered. I still think it would have been better to 'declare ourselves incompetent', (judicial term where I'm from for declining jurisdiction) but I understand why you did not see a need to do so. That said, as far as I can tell, it would be perfectly in the scope of a closer to recognise the downstream effects of an RfC on other issues, and to decide on the venue for the discussion if necessary.
As for the last paragraph of your answer: it might not matter in this case, because they did point in the same direction, but pointing this out as you did suggests there is any relevance in numerical volume, which as far as I was aware, there is not, and I would hate to see language like this more often as it may lead to people believing that Wikipedia is a democracy. (It is a minor complaint, not a major issue, but I do hope this kind of language won't become standard)
Your answer here, again, places that "numerical superiority" in front. A mistake, in my view: you don't need to "override a numerical majority", since such a "majority" does not matter unless it absolutely needs to. A priori, the arguments matter and nothing else. Thanks for your answer(s). Happy editing and good luck with the rest of the review. Slomo666 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Numerical voting is indeed taken into consideration when determining consensus. Though the guideline Wikipedia:Closing discussions §Consensus says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes", it also says "nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate" (supervoting). The specific guidance on counting is: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the larger number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy."
Some discussions are easy to close on policy grounds, but many (at least where I work, on the controversial discussions that come to WP:CR) involve conflicting rules as described. Many also involve disputes over applying a policy based on sources or claims made, how to read sources to discern controversial facts, how to apply a policy to choice of phrasing, or questions that mostly involve editorial discretion like arbitrary style choices or how to organize an article or set of articles. In these cases, I do discard arguments that are nonsensical, clearly wrong, or clearly misinterpret or contradict policy. But after that, I feel I generally have to respect a supermajority because that is the only way I can make a decision without imposing my own judgement. -- Beland (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Discussion (Trump)
I find some of the reasoning in the !votes to be far more concerning than the close. Seeking out sources to support a predisposed belief is not neutral editing. Using emotionally charged terms when non-charged terms exist is textbook POV pushing. Trying to define a contentious term yourself and then deciding whether that definition applies is pretty much exclusively the domain of WP:CPUSH or WP:CIR (usually a bit of both). And I'm almost tempted to say that citing WP:OBVIOUS or WP:SKYBLUE for political labeling should qualify for a tban on the spot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Beland to the extent that editors really need to stop engaging in politico-culture wars over the use of a single word as a descriptor, and that we should show, not tell. I get why people don't like Beland's last paragraph, but closers have some leeway to make a statement beyond the actual arguments and I don't view that aspect of their close as supplanting their evaluation of consensus. That said, I haven't read the discussion and don't plan to so I'm not going to !vote here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 months ago44 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to overturnSlakr's close pertaining to the RFC related to LLM usage as a reason to block. Per status quo, the closure stands. --qedk (t愛c)23:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Reasoning: The question presented by this RfC was "Should the list of reasons to block be expanded to include 'Persistent usage of large language models'?" The RfC predictably devolved into a gripe-fest about LLM use more broadly, and very few editors ended up actually addressing the RfC question. That's fine; the scope of discussions can change and the outcome can be different than the one contemplated by the proposal. However, I do not believe that slakr accurately evaluated consensus here. For example, slakr cited one of the arguments in support as being "The volunteer burden of mitigating LLM problems is asymmetric and increasing." The close, however, straight up ignores the counterargument to that point that was raised in the RfC: that this proposal cannot and will not change the need for editors to report LLM misuse at ANI/other noticeboards. slakr also stated that editors in support of the proposal argued that "It would describe policy as is already being carried out". However, the opposite is true: editors in support argued that admins don't have enough discretion to block editors for LLM misuse. In oppositon to that, the argument was made that admins already have broad discretion to block disruptive editors and that we don't need to codify admin authority in that manner. More concerningly, slakr's close adopts the RfC framing of "persistant LLM usage", notwithstanding that many editors (including those in support of the proposal) pointed out that our PAGs currently only bar LLM misuse. (See Chaotic Enby's comment below.) When I asked for clarification of the close or to expand it, slakr declined to explain how they evaluated those arguments.
Now that I've had some time to review some of the input, I'd like to address some of voorts's concerns.
1. More concerningly, slakr's close adopts the RfC framing of "persistant LLM usage", notwithstanding that many editors (including those in support of the proposal) pointed out that our PAGs currently only bar LLM misuse.
I'm now certain that several people did not read the closing text before opening this or commenting on it. The closing text was: "There seems to be consensus for including persistent unsanctioned LLM usage in the blocking policy's list of common rationales for blocks ("WHYBLOCK")." I altered the emphasis here, because it's misquoted a few times, and several people below likely didn't understand the word "unsanctioned" in-context and/or ignored it entirely. At the very least, voorts clearly ignored it when opening this.
2. The close, however, straight up ignores the counterargument to that point that was raised in the RfC: that this proposal cannot and will not change the need for editors to report LLM misuse at ANI/other noticeboards.
Nothing in the blocking policy pertaining to this requires blockable behavior to first have a noticeboard discussion. We normally do have a discussion if there's some element of uncertainty, of course, but when someone's running roughshod over the wiki and ignoring warnings, it's common to block them after a few warnings and with no noticeboard discussion. So no, I didn't mention it; to have mentioned it would have hallucinated policy out of thin air—like an LLM would do, poetically. Could I have mentioned it? Yes, but as I pointed out when voorts dropped onto my talk page originally: there just isn't enough room or desire for myself to counter-point every single point's counter-point that every single editor wants me to add to a close. We'd basically just be duplicating the entire discussion. Closes are also for brevity.
3. slakr also stated that editors in support of the proposal argued that "It would describe policy as is already being carried out". However, the opposite is true: editors in support argued that admins don't have enough discretion to block editors for LLM misuse. In oppositon to that, the argument was made that admins already have broad discretion to block disruptive editors and that we don't need to codify admin authority in that manner.
Let's digest what actually happened (to the best of my memory):
While yes, some believed admins didn't already have the ability to block for disruptive/abusive/problematic/disallowed LLM use, they still felt that listing it on the main blocking policy page would accomplish this. That lack of awareness reinforces the argument. If they didn't know, yeah, I can see why they think it needs to be mentioned, since new editors would likely make the same mistake. I think some people might have even made this latter argument, too, but I forget.
On top of this, some on both sides agreed that admins have the ability to block via the disruptive-editing route; that means they acknowledge that it's blockable. Adding it to the list of common rationales isn't precluded by this assertion.
Some believed that admins should specifically be able to block not just as "Disruptive Editing" but for disruptive/abusive/problematic/disallowed LLM use specifically. That further refines that they support the ability to block for that.
Some people believed that admins don't or shouldn't have the ability block disruptive/abusive/problematic/disallowed LLM use. That does not align with existing policy or practice; there was not consensus to overturn existing policy/practice.
Some people believed that admins should block all LLM use. This does not align with existing policy/practice; there was not consensus to overturn existing policy/practice; this would not align with a "common rationale for blocks."
Some of those opposing the proposal also believed that admins already have the ability to block disruptive/abusive/problematic/disallowed LLM use. That further acknowledges that it's blockable. Adding it to the list of common rationales isn't precluded by this assertion.
Combining everything together, I felt there was sufficient consensus that if people believed persistent, unsanctioned LLM use is a common rationale for blocking, then there's not a clear policy-based conflict with listing it as a common rationale for blocking.
Now, did I run numbers to determine whether it truly is "common?" No. I reflected that the participants in the discussion felt that it was. That's the job.
RE point 2, you are misunderstanding my objection. It has nothing to do with whether warnings are required. Your close said that editors in support of the change argued "The volunteer burden of mitigating LLM problems is asymmetric and increasing." They did argue that. Specifically, they asserted that this change would somehow reduce the volunteer burden. In response, myself and others argued that they were providing zero evidence that this change would affect "the volunteer burden" and that editors would still need to find LLM misuse and report it to admins.
RE point 3, you're now admitting that your summary of arguments in support is inaccurate and that things weren't as simple as your close makes them seem. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
"The volunteer burden of mitigating LLM problems is asymmetric and increasing." They did argue that. Specifically, they asserted that this change would somehow reduce the volunteer burden....zero evidence that this change would affect "the volunteer burden".
It's not my job as a closer to predict the future. However, it is important, as a closer, that I mention common arguments and because it wasn't prima facie illogical or otherwise at odds with existing policy—regardless of whether someone had numbers and projections to back it up. Furthermore, I could imagine that elevating it to the main BLOCK page might plausibly help mitigate a problem of lack-of-visibility. As such, I feel that ignoring it entirely would have incorrectly reflected what happened in the discussion. Could the counter-arguments also have been mentioned? Yep. I don't think they need to be in the interests of brevity and not materially affecting the close.
you're now admitting that your summary of arguments in support is inaccurate and that things weren't as simple as your close makes them seem.
1. I don't know how you're arriving at this conclusion, but you're more than welcome to show me the better way to close and summarize this beast. You won't, as we've established, but you're still more than welcome.
2. All closes have to simplify things—especially big ones with extensive discussion. No close is as simple as the underlying discussion, but an ideal close, in my opinion, does simplify things as much as possible so that anyone trying to reference it gets a good-enough overview of what happened.
The job of a closer is to evaluate the strength of arguments, not just list them out. I didn't ask you to ignore the argument of point 2. My objection is that you appear not to have even considered the counterarguments when you made the close. Your response here makes it seem like your close was a supervote. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Excessively evaluating the strength of the arguments—as I feel you're proposing here—instead of by-default reporting the arguments given is the very definition of a supervote. It's way more important to evaluate the strength of arguments in situations where policies and guidelines are being interpreted. For example, if someone says "Delete - Article should be deleted because it violates BLP," yet you know it clearly doesn't violate BLP as the community typically interprets it, yeah, you squash the argument. When people are proposing changes to a policy itself, you go with what people want so long as it doesn't conflict with (or introduce conflicts with) existing policy. I very clearly stated why I feel this change doesn't conflict with existing policy here, and I very clearly stated in the close why some elements of what people wanted do conflict with existing policy and further steps to consider. --slakr\talk/19:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
While I can't really speak to hypotheticals that haven't happened, sure, I'll bite. I likely would have reported that there was significant belief (presumably among established editors) that the change will eliminate misuse of LLMs on-wiki—even if I personally felt that would be unlikely. --slakr\talk/20:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Non-participants (LLM usage)
Endorse Based on a quick count of the bolded !votes, seems like ~80% of participants answered Yes/Support to the RfC question of Should the list of reasons to block be expanded to include "Persistent usage of large language models"?. Sure, consensus isn't decided based on a straight vote count, but an 80% support level for a widely-attended RfC (131 people commented in that discussion apparently) is very difficult to ignore. The closer couldn't have closed the RfC any other way. Some1 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I too was surprised by this close, for pretty much the reasons given in the initial post here - it seems to be closer to a a vote count than to a proper analysis of the actual substance. I stress I'm not saying it was just a vote count, just that the number of bolded supports seems to have been given more weight than they should given that many of those supports seems to have misunderstood the actual issues under discussion (which is very sadly all too common when it comes to AI/LLMs on Wikipedia - the whole thing is a lot more complicated and nuanced than the simple "AI bad" many seem to desire it to be). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
@Slakr Voorts was absolutely correct to refuse to do your job as closer for you, just as I would have been, and just as every other involved editor would have been. If you don't understand that then you really shouldn't be closing RFCs. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Seconding Thryduulf here, if there are issues with the closure, it shouldn't be the responsibility of other editors (and especially not of involved editors!) to write a new one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps it's my inexperience with the close-review process, but isn't it inevitably the responsibility of another editor to write a new close if people decide the old one has issues? Like, say it's overturned; someone else is going to eventually have to close it with a new close. --slakr\talk/14:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
If the close is overturned, a new editor will evaluate the discussion with a fresh set of eyes and draft a new close. The close review process does not require providing a new draft close up front. It also shouldn't require that because the purpose of a close review is to determine whether the closer reasonably evaluated consensus, not how the discussion should be closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I see. I guess, then, the main question is whether or not I closed it unreasonably. I'd love to get your version of what reasonable is, but clearly that's not going to happen, so I dunno what else I can do to help. *shrug* Best wishes. --slakr\talk/21:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
The requester's argument relies on the fact that slakr's close adopts the RfC framing of "persistant LLM usage", while the exact words that slakr used were actually persistent unsanctioned LLM usage, which indeed corresponds much better to LLM misuse. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
"The closer didn't take my argument into consideration" isn't a valid objection to an RFC closure (it's a common misunderstanding of WP:CLOSE and WP:NOTAVOTE.) While closers do weigh the strength of arguments, they only do so by assessing what the community believes and discarding arguments that are not grounded in policy. When both sides present reasonable policy-based arguments, it is not the closer's role to select which argument is stronger - that is up to the community. Per CLOSE, If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the larger number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The rationale for this review request amounts to saying "but I think our arguments were right and theirs were wrong", which is an unworkable standard to challenge an RFC (every experienced editor who weighs in on an RFC is obviously going to think their arguments are correct and that everything the other side says is wrong or is easily rebutted.) No matter how strong you may think your arguments were and no matter how much you personally treasure your rebuttals, they failed to convince the community; nor were the arguments on the other side groundless to the extent that a closer could reasonably disregard them. As a result, there was only one way this RFC could have been closed. --Aquillion (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I would like to see the closure overturned and reopened for a new close. Obviously I would prefer if the close then comes out the other way, but I am not advocating that that occur through a close review. This is an consequential change to policy and the close should document how the closer weighed the relevant arguments, not list a few arguments that were made on reach side and then write a paragraph describing next steps. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Again, this misunderstands what closes are supposed to be. A closer's job is not to weigh every argument and decide which one the closer feels is strongest; it's to evaluate what argument the community thinks is strongest. This means that an argument that the community clearly disregarded can be likewise disregarded by the closer - it makes no difference how strong you feel it is if you failed to convince people. Closers has some room to disregard arguments that are not grounded in policy, or to disregard opinions with no rationale that don't really seem to have actually considered the argument they are endorsing, but in situations where there is a clear numerical majority favoring a policy-compliant position from editors using rationales that are reasonable under policy, the closer does not have the option to close it in any other way. What you are requesting (ie. a "new close" because you feel the closer didn't address an argument you personally found compelling, where you hope the closer closes it the other way based on their personal analysis of the arguments) is against policy. Even if you somehow got it re-closed, and even if the new closer disregarded WP:CLOSE and inappropriately closed it the other way, it would immediately be brought back here and overturned again, because there is simply no viable reading of consensus that would support the outcome you want. RFCs aren't simple numerical votes, but they do represent the actual consensus of the community, rather than just the opinion of the closer; if you want to overturn an RFC with, from a quick eyeball, a roughly 2:1 majority in one direction, you need a better argument for how the closer misread consensus than "you didn't address my counterargument!" It's not the closer's job to address every individual point raised in the RFC; it's their job to determine whether those points convinced the community. If you want to get it overturned you have to actually argue that the community sided with you, and that your argument actually convinced them; these things are just clearly not true. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
This issue is that many of the supporting comments are not grounded in policy and/or grounded in a misunderstanding of policy. For example LLM use is not prohibited by policy, but rather LLM misuse. Misuse is rather overbroadly defined, but not to the extent that it covers all use, indeed some uses are explicitly permitted. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: quick question: which part of the closing text do you feel claims/implies that consensus prohibits all use of LLMs? --slakr\talk/23:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't do so explicitly, but I can't see how to arrive at the consensus it does without implicitly endorsing the comments that do as being in accordance with prior community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting that although the close said There seems to be consensus for including persistent unsanctioned LLM usage in the blocking policy's list of common rationales for blocks, WP:DBLOCK was actually updated with simply persistent usage of large language models. So I guess the memo was not heeded to the tee, though I suppose anyone can correct this. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Yikes; I intentionally crafted that closing text to preclude the implication that it was any LLM usage, as that would, like others have mentioned (and I mention in my close), create a confusing conflict with existing guidelines. --slakr\talk/00:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
What an egregious decision. I will never block anyone for productive LLM usage, and I will contest any such block that I encounter. The idea of accepting a proposal that "any administrator would be able to block on sight for LLM usage" means that it's now prohibited to use an LLM to modify an existing userspace page. Consider User:Nyttend/sandbox/without, which has a lot of links, including some with non-ASCII characters; I could have used an LLM to mark the lines that have these characters, but no longer. Perhaps I should first get some minor sanction for it (e.g. a level-1 warning), so I won't be blockable for doing this without sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I guess I should go ahead and formally oppose this close. Now, the blocking policy is at odds with other policies and guidelines. Consider Wikipedia:User pages, which permits the use of user subpages for experimentation and plans for future Wikipedia work — an LLM is a potentially useful tool that can be used in my user sandbox, but now if I do it persistently, I can get blocked. See also WP:OWN, which acknowledges that Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit — just dumping in this prohibition creates a conflict with this policy, too. And it's just bizarre that the new addition says that I could be blocked for the uses I mentioned if I'm unsanctioned, but it implies that I can't be blocked under this addition if I've been sanctioned for it. Nyttend (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
PS, note that the close also conflicts with Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/RfC, which acknowledges that More specialized, constructive use cases do exist, from using them as research assistants to citation-formatting tools, and this guideline does not aim to restrict any of these use cases. If I do those things persistently, now I can be blocked for that, since nobody's going to sanction me for doing those things. Nyttend (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Is LLM usage ever a reason to block per se, regardless of whether any other PAGs have been violated? WP:LLM (which presumably we are being pointed towards to find out what constitutes unsanctioned LLM usage) suggests yes, but paradoxically says that this is because Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. I think this is the crux of the issue; we shouldn't ban people from using tools because they are faulty in the hands of the incompetent, we should instead ban the incompetent users per WP:CIR. Slop is slop. Whether it comes from a human or an LLM. Just bin the slop, and the users producing it. That is already quite clear in policies and I don't think admins are confused about it. Both WP:LLM and this closeRfC result seem to be technophobic overreaches. All that matters is whether the published material is acceptable or not, according to the usual policies. If "aversion to writing style" is the motivation, which it seems to be for some, then that should be made explicit, and discussed. As it stands we don't ban people for writing style AFAIK. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Right but even if the close had said Persistent usage of large language models to generate or rewrite article content I would make the same argument. We shouldn't police what tools people are using, just the outcome of their tool use. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
You said the close adopts the RfC framing of "persistent LLM usage" but it actually says persistent unsanctioned LLM usage, which seems to mean LLM misuse. Are you hoping for a different outcome in the close, or just proper acknowledgement of the different arguments given? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Both WP:LLM and this close seem to be technophobic overreaches The reasoning behind WP:LLM is that more often than not, editors contributing to articles using LLM output are not properly reviewing such content. Thus, the community has decided that editors can only use LLMs in articles for basic copyediting of their own writing and translation. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Solving a problem that doesn't exist. Admins have full license to block for disruptive editing of any kind. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Close reviews are not for relitigating the question (or discussing something vaguely related), they're for assessing whether the close was correct Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is obviously the fault of the editors who worked on creating the new article instead of searching for the existing article. It cannot be fixed by suppressing the article that was created first.
It might have been better to merge into the older article but ultimately I'm not sure it matters particularly as long as the edit histories contain a linkage so the material can be attributed. On the other hand edits like this are nonconstructive, and coming straight to this noticeboard rather than going to the article's or a user's talk page seems premature. Morwen (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unban appeal from Beyoglou
Latest comment: 2 months ago17 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to unban Beyoglou from the English Wikipedia. I am closing this discussion with no prejudice towards a future unban request. I would recommend them to review the feedback posted by the participants in this discussion carefully. --qedk (t愛c)18:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
From utrs:112132 (note that UTRS doesn't allow paragraph breaks in appeals for some reason):
I was first indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia in 2021. Although I managed to have the block lifted in 2022, I was re-blocked shortly after due to prior sockpuppeting and off-site coordination that had occurred before the initial unblocking. At the time of these incidents four years ago, I was only 17 years old (a high school student and a minor). My initial appeals were sincere, I thought I had understood the reasons for my block and was ready to contribute, but I was wrong. However, as my past sockpuppets and mistakes resurfaced, I was blocked again. At that age, being distanced from a project I loved caused me deep frustration. Instead of acting constructively, I reacted poorly out of anger. And I sockpuppeted again. And again, and again… This led to further behavioral issues: I argued with users, adopted a confrontational mindset, and occasionally used Wikipedia for political purposes for 8 months. Looking back, I am deeply ashamed of those actions. I have lived with the weight of this block for three years. It follows my username at every Wikimedia event I attend. During these three years, I have not made any attempt to evade my block or engage in sockpuppeting. I believe three years is a significant period for a blocked user to reflect on their mistakes. In the meantime, I contributed to Commons a lot, I have become one of the most active and prominent contributors to the Turkish Wikipedia, even traveling to Nairobi on a Wikimedia Foundation scholarship. Over the past four years, I have fully integrated into the movement, making over 10,000 edits and participating in international events such as Wikimania 2025, CEE 2024, and Hackathon 2025 as both an organizer and a participant. I have also served as a trainer in educational programs like the Arhavi Wikicamp. I have proven that I can be a dedicated, productive, and collaborative member of this community. We all grow and change. Wikipedia can be a difficult environment for young users sometimes. However, I am no longer the person I was four years ago. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal, I have learned how to contribute constructively and how to help build an encyclopedia. I wish to remove the "indefinitely blocked" label that has followed me for years, a label that I now feel does not represent who I am. While I am asking for one last chance this is not merely a request to be unblocked, it is a declaration that I am no longer a vandal, but a dedicated Wikipedian who wants contribute to English Wikipedia. Clarification on Sockpuppet Allegations: I want to be completely transparent regarding my past. The accounts HistoryofMongolia, Alper sm, and Historyofarmenia1 were not mine, they were attributed to me via the "duck" due to similar editing patterns. However, I want to confirm that the accounts Blubluman and Crasyy were indeed mine. I am disclosing this now to ensure my record is accurate and to show that I am taking full responsibility for my actual mistakes. Thank you for your time and for considering my request.
The appeal looks very solid, and they have indeed been a constructive contributor in the Turkish Wikipedia, so I'm tempted to approve. Only things that worry me are some stylistic hints that the appeal might be AI-generated (e.g. this is not merely a request to be unblocked, it is a declaration that I am no longer a vandal and the stray Clarification on Sockpuppet Allegations:, although I'm not definitive enough to oppose based on this alone. (Partially struck, cf. below. 17:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Now that I look at it more closely, the timeline doesn't really line up: you state that you were reblocked due to prior sockpuppeting, but the accounts you list do not include those blocked at that point in time (namely, Recentcontributorsedits, Belugan, and a few others). Additionally, HistoryofMongolia was first blocked as a "duck" but later connected to you via CheckUser evidence, which I am surprised wasn't addressed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I was just about to say that this looks AI-generated - it always finishes them off with the same exact sentence.
There are variations where only half is used (time/considering), but both together is a big red flag to me. It prefers to use both when the appeal is longer, since it thinks the signoff should also be longer as a result. Blue-Sonnet06:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Personally, I think that this reads more like an LLM-produced translation than an LLM-generation. My guess is that it was written in Turkish and then passed through an LLM, maybe also by asking it for "improvements".
No comments on the timeline though, I haven't looked at it. Also haven't seen the further communication from the user, which I guess is in UTRS which I don't have access to. --Gurkubondinn10:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - in addition to what Chaotic Enby and Blue-Sonnet said above, while ZeroGPT indicates that the appeal is likely a mix of human and AI writing (specifically 42.6%), GPTZero indicates an 89% certainty that the request was generated by AI with the remaining 11% being that it is a mix of human and AI generated content. Hence, I'm not really confident that this request can be treated as genuine. ~SG5536B 22:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Given the comments about the emails below, I've also decided to withdraw my explicit "oppose" for now. I'm not certain about supporting given the user's multiple rounds of blocks on the Turkish Wikipedia (the latest one being in February this year). ~SG5536B 14:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Beyoglou was one of the leaders behind a massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia . In some socking cases they even masqueraded as other ethnic groups MongolianArmenianArmenian againIrishSpanish. In one of their accounts they also in bad faith attempted to remove info about the Armenian genocide .
"I argued with users, adopted a confrontational mindset" Is one way to put it. They constantly made personal attacks (EDIT: ), sometimes even xenophobic. One account even got blocked for "egregious personal attacks", not an SPI. And already back in February they were briefly blocked in the Turkish Wikipedia for commenting on another user . And they got blocked five times in 2025. No one is perfect, that is obvious, but I think this is important to consider when they have such a long history of disruption in the English Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - The more I look at this, the less I like it. There are clear signs of AI generation.
Overly positive history, missing important details
See the missing socks raised by Chaotic Enby & HOI and the very concerning history given by HOI. AI will skim over what it doesn't know, leaving gaps or errors.
The appeal gives the impression of a spotless, glowing history at Turkish Wikipedia, because that's all it knows (AI is also notoriously promotional).
We know better. There are seventeen blocks since June 2022 - six of those in 2025 and one in February 2026.
Change in proficiency
This is the standard of English language writing in 2022, then this in 2023.
Now we have "This led to further behavioral issues: I argued with users, adopted a confrontational mindset, and occasionally used Wikipedia for political purposes for 8 months. Looking back, I am deeply ashamed of those actions."
There isn't a single typo or grammatical error to be found - it's entirely possible (even likely) that they've improved in the past 3/4 years, but by this much?
Random section heading
"Clarification on Sockpuppet Allegations:"
Also note the "Inline-header vertical lists" section of WP:AISIGNS & where this heading is found in the original appeal.
Not X but Y
"...this is not merely a request to be unblocked, it is a declaration that I am no longer a vandal, but a dedicated Wikipedian who wants contribute to English Wikipedia."
Typical AI signoff
"Thank you for your time and for considering my request."
This isn't an appeal written from the heart, it's what a machine thinks we want to hear (and it was disturbingly close to getting it right).
If they'd written the appeal themselves, been open about all of their socks and shown true introspection & understanding of the many problems they caused, I might have considered supporting their appeal. I can't support this.Blue-Sonnet01:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Struck following further communication from the editor, I'm still not over the line to change to an accept considering the unclear history & concerns from Chaotic Enby and HOI.
Beyoglou has contacted me by email and told me that the words were his, kindly providing me with a previous draft of his appeal in Turkish. As I don't speak the language, I am copying it here in hope that someone fluent in Turkish may be of help. Nonetheless, it appears through running that draft through translation software (and just looking at its structure) that most of the AI-isms are absent from it. What I believe is that Beyoglou sincerely wrote this appeal, but that whichever tools were used to translate it added some degree of polishing (e.g. section heading where a paragraph break was, signoff) leading it to read as much more AI-like. This also matches with his work on Turkish Wikipedia to pass a policy to speedily delete unreviewed AI-generated content (their equivalent of G15).
Full draft appeal text (in Turkish)
İngilizce Vikipedi’de ilk defa 2021 yılında süresiz şekilde engellendim bu engeli 2022 yılında kaldırttım ama engeli kaldırmadan önce yaptığım kuklacılık ve arkadaşlarımla site dışı iletişim sebebiyle yeniden engel yedim. 4 sene önce bu engelleri yediğimde yaşım 17di reşit dahi değil aynı zamanda liseliydim. İlk engel sonrası bildirimlerimde samimiydim engeli gerektiren sebepleri anladığımı sanmış İngilizce Vikipedi’de katkı vermek üzereydim ancak engel açılmasının öncesinde yaptığım hataların tekrar gün yüzüne çıkmasıyla tekrar engellendim. O yaşımda Türkçe sürümüne ve Commonsa severek katkı verdiğim bu siteden uzaklaştırıldığım için üzüldüm, kırıldım ve sistemden uzaklaştırılmanın verdiği sinirle yapıcı şekilde ilerlemek yerine çok yanlış şeyler yaptım. Düzenleyememe siniri hatamı anlamamam ve genç yaşım sebebiyle izlediğim yolun yeniden aykırı olmasına yol açtı. Kullanıcılarla atıştım, çatışma mantalitesiyle hareket ettim ve yer yer Vikipediyi politik olarak kullandım. Bunlar şimdiden baktığımda şahsen çok utanç duyduğum şeyler. Gittiğim etkinliklerde kullanıcı adımla bulunduğum her ortamda da engelin gözükmesi vesilesiyle bu cezayı 3 senedir çekiyorum. 3 senedir ne bir kukla girişiminde bulundum ne de engel delecek herhangi bir davranışım oldu. 3 yıl. Bir engelli kullanıcı için hataların anlaşılması için uzun bir süre. Türkçe Vikipedi’deki en çok içerik üreten ve en ön plana çıkan kullanıcılardan biri olarak vakıf bursuyla Nairobi'ye dahi gittim. Aradan geçen dört senede Wikimedia komünitesini keşfettim Türkçe Vikipedi’de 10000 değişiklik yaptım ve Wikimania 2025 CEE 2024 Hackathon 2025 dahil olmak üzere uluslararası etkinliklerde gerek görevli gerek katılımcı olarak boy gösterdim. Komüniteyi tanıdıkça içine girdim ve projeler ürettim çeşitli eğitimlerde (Arhavi Wikicampı) gibi eğitmenlik yaptım. Bu siteye emek verdim, katkı verdim ve uyumlu bir kullanıcı oldum. Hepimiz insanız, hepimiz büyüyoruz. Vikipedi’de iz bırakmak bizler için tehlikeli olabiliyor özellikle küçük yaşlardaki benim gibi kullanıcılar çok sık hata yapabiliyor ancak seneler geçiyor. Bizler aynı kalmıyor değişip öğreniyoruz. Ben bu 3 senede engel açma girişiminin sonucundan bağımsız olacak şekilde çok şey öğrendim. Ve öğrendim, faydalı katkı vermeyi komünitede görev almayı ve bir ansiklopedi inşa etmeyi öğrendim. Artık sırtıma yapışan bu süresiz, doğru olduğunu gördüğüm ancak bana siteyi öğreten aldıran engel damgasının üstümden kalkmasını istiyorum. Bunu inceleyecek hizmetli ne karar verirse versin kendisine teşekkür ediyorum, yazdığım her cümle bir engelimi açın çağrısı değil ben artık bir vandal değilim Vikipedist'im bildirisi.
Son olarak 3 yıldır kukla yapmadım dememe ek olarak şunu belirtmek istiyorum. Burada katkı örüntüsü ortada kuklalar konusunda yalan söyleyecek halim de yok halihazırda engelliyim. Confirmed sockpuppets kısmında bulunan HistoryofMongolia ile Alper sm hesapları ile suspected sockpuppets kısmında bulunan Historyofarmenia1 benim kukla hesaplarım değildi benzer makalelerde değişiklikler yapıldığı için ördek politikası uyarınca davranış şüphesinden denetçi onayladı, bunun sonucunda kendisinin açtığı bütün kuklalar denetçiler tarafından bana atfedildi. Ancak suspected sockpuppets kısmında sıralanan Blubluman ile Crasyy benim hesaplarımdı. Bu hatayı da geçen yıl sayısını doğrulamak için belirtmek isterim.
I've had a couple of emails also, the second one said "History of Mongolia wasn’t my account, I pointed it a lot of times. I used AI for translation, not even one sentence added by AI.” I've struck my oppose for now, since it was mainly based on AI use. Blue-Sonnet09:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Lean oppose essentially along the same lines as HoI. Given the extent of repeat sockpuppetry and egregious personal attacks, I'm leery of giving a...not even sure which ordinal number chance we're on given the sockpuppetry. Any path back to editing should include significant guardrails in the form of TBANs, but I'm not convinced even that would be appropriate at this juncture. signed, Rosguilltalk19:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
I've received a polite email from Beyoglou that doesn't really change my opinion one way or the other. signed, Rosguilltalk15:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFPP and AIV
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Extraordinary Writ: temporary accounts and non-autoconfirmed registered users cannot edit the root userpage of other users, enforced by an abuse filter. As such, requesting a deletion on AN is as good as tagging the talkpage via {{db-reason}} and specifying that one meant to tag the user page but can't. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is now open. If you're reading this, there's a good chance you are eligible to vote. As I have previously explained there is some advantage to English Wikipedians to having a functional U4C. There is information on the candidates, their answers to questions, discussion about them, and candidate guides to help you cast your vote. When you are ready to vote you can do it here. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about the process (I am serving on the U4C election committee, so I am limited in somethings I can say). Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Unarchived link to deleted article at [WP:ASIGNS]
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
AISIGNS contains a bunch of examples of AI writing pulled from past Wikipedia diffs, all of which are cited. Because of the nature of those examples, there's a very high likelyhood that their root pages will be deleted, including this diff at the Thematic breaks section. Another redlink diff in the same section was replaced with an archive.org link, so I'm assuming that this redlink is unintentional. Could someone with access to the deleted page try to archive it? Thanks! JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay17:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Moves reverted, but associated protection settings not fixed
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
See here. I have reverted four of the moves listed in the this closed move discussion. I've no objection to the consensus there, but it has broken ChristieBot and I don't have time to fix it at the moment. I have reverted the moves as I have enough rights to do that, but I am not an admin and can't put the protection settings back the way they were. Can someone here who knows what they're doing take care of it? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm here to bring to attention a harmful move done by User:Useroner, a Ladin Wikipedia administrator.
When I edited the page for Russia, to fix a NPOV violation (showing Crimea and all annexed territories of Russia as part of Russia), he promptly undid my edit, and blocked me from editing - for 5 months. Can someone help me to act against this? Wheatley2(speak to me)(watch me)04:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Just want to note that admins on the English Wikipedia have no powers over the Wikipedias in other languages. You'll have to deal with the issue directly on the Ladin Wikipedia ~2026-14086-89 (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An admin needed for posting request for unblocking
Davidbena has emailed me to ask an admin to post his appeal given on User talk:Davidbena at the appropriate place.
My 2 cents: Davidbena and I have a looong history together in the IP area; we are at the total opposite sides "of the divide". In spite of this, we have productively worked (and quarrelled) together over lots of articles (see Talk:Bayt Nattif or Talk:Beth-Anath). I like Davidbena; he is always honest and he actually look up things when unsure. (A remarkable number of editors in the IP area looks as if they never open a book). Davidbena can also be totally pigheaded, and dig himself into the ground, Which is what happened this last time to get him banned.
I hope some admin will post the appeal. Personally, I would wish he was unblocked, (but still topic-banned), Huldra (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
There is no human being on earth who does not occasionally make an honest mistake, just as I did a little more than one year ago, when I inadvertently wrote a less offensive word in place of the more offensive word "rape", in an article which I, myself, had created, entitled Beautiful captive woman. The word that I used instead was "connexion," a word that is used in place of "rape" in other academic sources (e.g. the Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 [p. 392]). I was unaware at the time that we, as editors on Wikipedia, are generally not allowed to make use of euphemisms (see MOS:EUPHEMISM). For a record of my last appeal (which was declined), scroll down to the bottom of the link here, "Davidbena unban request." See also Asking to be unblocked, and this here.
This venue that I love so much I cannot do away with. I return back to her (Wikipedia) because I love what I have done here, in the small contributions that I've made from 2014-2025, and which I hope to make still. And, yes, I am currently banned from editing this site because of a reprimand that the community felt had to be made against me, because of that article which I created and edited, and in which I neglected (not willfully, but inadvertently) a rule that says we cannot make-use of euphemisms. I am fully in agreement with the need for accountability on Wikipedia, and how that punishment is altogether right, fair and just whenever editors step out-of-line. There is no question in my mind (agreeing whole-heartedly) that in a reputable venue such as this, where there must be accuracy and where editors must adhere to rules and regulations, there has to be accountability whenever these rules are abrogated. With that said, I wish to call attention to my fellow-editors here how that the preponderance of my work here on Wikipedia has been good and useful to people from different backgrounds, with many historical, geographical and botanical articles having no small importance. Although my articles and contributions speak for themselves, in order to prove my worth on this great project, I would be willing to place myself under a 6-month trial period during which time all my edits will be forwarded (in advance) to an administrator for approval oir rejection.
The one thing that we need here on Wikipedia is patience. I am humbly asking to be brought back into the fold. I will do my utmost best to adhere to all rules, and whenever I am in doubt, I will ask the advice of an administrator. Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm neutral on unbanning, but I oppose any kind of probation beyond the extent that a topic ban can be called such. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable that the mindset that led to the behavior has changed. It seems to be, even in this unban request, that Davidbena is either uncomfortable or unwilling to use clear language when discussing topics such as this. I don't know enough about them to know if it's because of rape, religion, or just some idiom that compels them to couching harsh negative words with something gentler. But the fact that they couldn't just say in their appeal that "I edited out rape when the word rape was called for" doesn't really give me the warm fuzzies.--v/r - TP21:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
What do we think of a TBAN on WP:GENSEX and possibly also religion, would that cover the areas we're concerned with? I also see a previous informal promise to not push back when challenged, whilst that might not be enforceable I hope they would still stick to that. Blue-Sonnet06:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
The appeal above doesn't really address the reason Davidbena was banned. In the ANI thread leading to the siteban, Davidbena explained in his first post a few minutes after the thread was started that he had just found out about MOS:EUPHEMISM. When the ban was enacted after ten days of discussion, a main reason for it was Davidbena's behaviour in the rest of the thread. Another reason was his history of sanctions, so it wasn't really just about one mistake. I understand that it's easy to forget the details of an ANI discussion after more than a year, but Davidbena presumably read through the discussions before formulating the appeal, and it doesn't make me entirely confident. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose unbanning as user still doesn't understand or minimizes the issues. The initial problem wasn't one instance of using a "less offensive term" (actually, the terms used by Davdbena were more offensive as they served to whitewash rape by soldiers) but a use of such terms throughout the article, including "engage in conjugal affairs", "act of passion", "give vent to his passions", 'had intercourse with" and "wish to sleep with her". They explicitly, deliberately changed "rape" to "violate the chastity". The continued defense of "connexion" above, as "a word that is used in place of "rape" in other academic sources" while pointing to a 1933 source quoting even older sources, is concerning. Coupled with the long history of topic bans and promises of improving, I don't think starting this same cycle once again is really useful. Fram (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Unban, as lesson learned. A year ban is enough to give this long-winded user a route back. I've noticed that many posters on-line use * for things like r*pe, di*orce, or "pass the s*lt", thinking that some direct words are too offensive for humans to read. This was similar, and actually an indef seems excessive. A long-time established editor who has waited a year to return and sincerely wants to volunteer should be welcomed. I wish many more would be allowed back, as some of Wikipedia's major editors are wandering around or camping just outside the walls (you can see their campfires at night). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
These are not used because some direct words are too offensive for humans to read.
Oppose. Davidbena wrote, in an article, in Wikivoice, unsourced, "The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law" concerning rape. They did so at a time when military sexual violence was a prominent ARBPIA issue. It was a major reason they were banned (in the close, "Davidbena's original research arguing that Jews might be exempt from international laws regarding rape"), but the above appeal doesn't address it and falsely presents the ban as being just for using euphemism. It seems lessons have not been learned and the editor would still present a risk to the encyclopedia, the more so because they present themselves so persuasively. NebY (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
"they present themselves so persuasively", well, isn't that the idea when asking for an unban? It's been over a year, and that's why editor's give these bans, to drive the point home. Wikipedia recognizes rape as rape, and Davidbena surely knows that, it's not rocket science. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Davidbena was banned in part for "original research arguing that Jews might be exempt from international laws regarding rape". Their appeal does not address that; instead we have fine words about euphemism and love. NebY (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Involved oppose the issues go way beyond DavidBena's use of a less offensive word, and some of that is still present in pinging and emailing to have their appeal carried over on their timeline. At a minimum, an unblock would need multiple topic bans and when that's the case, it shows an issue with the editor's ability to be collaborative when things don't go their way. All of that said, I acknowledge that it's hard to show you can be productive when you're sitebanned and unable to edit. I wonder if David would be willing to edit elsewhere to show that ability and if it would fulfill their need to edit until they can be unbaned to edit here. StarMississippi15:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose As mentioned, this doesn't address the other elephant in the room at all, and the one it does address it does so unconvincingly. Star Mississippi makes a good point: editing on Simple English Wikipedia for six months, for instance, would go a long way to demonstrate that the issues won't recur here. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock request from Angelgreat
Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, It's me, Angelgreat. I got blocked because I forgot to attach some sources and add a summary to my edits. Some of them violated copyright, and I didn't check twice on all my edits. I also made things worse by attacking admins related to my previous blocking, which looking back was a dick move. As for the questions, Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License. Which means text, photos, and videos are free to be used on other sited outside of Wikipedia unless otherwise noted. As a result, I got blocked for that, as it constituted disruptive editing. I also got my blocked extended for editing other people's comments. While being blocked here, I did uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons and edited articles to Simple Wikipedia (mostly on Ukraine). But after being blocked on Commons for attacking the admins again, then the loss of Kamala to the recent elections, I gave up on the project for a while and left. Now, after reflecting on the past and current situation, I want to return and I want to be a better Wikimedian. I take full responsibility for my actions and behavior towards the many admins involved in my blocking and previous appeals and I'll agree to a standard offer. I'm trying not to make the same mistakes from the past years ago. I know what copyright is and I know how not to attack users and admins. I'll accept the terms, restrictions and conditions of the standard offer, including any restrictions and bans on any pages, and certain admin pages and move onto other page topics, and I'll refrain from any attacks on pther parts of the Wikimedia foundation, social media or Discord. I don't want to be blocked forever and I don't want more trouble with the admins here or on Commons. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Also, I have also not joined Grokpedia, in case anyone was wondering. I'm not supporting the ai or maga movement.
Subsequent comments:
I know I can never undo the past or the damage I caused (believe me, I would change it if I could), but what I can do is rebuild trust, even if it takes a while to do.
Also, I will stop importing cross-wiki issues too and will also agreed to any page restrictions and blocks on the Simple English Wiki and on Commons too.
They aren't formally community banned, but since no admin has been willing to decide on their request since April 11 (!) I'm sending this to AN to review as if it were a community ban in hopes of getting some momentum going. * Pppery *it has begun...18:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Ferret is the original blocking admin; if they aren't already aware of this thread, I'll notify them. I revoked talk page access about 18 months after the original block, so I'm the most recent blocking admin. I strongly oppose lifting this block, as I see no significant likelihood of a net benefit to the project, after years of problems from this user. Reasonable people may (and often do) disagree with my position. --Yamla (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
For what its worth as a dusty semi-retiree, I agree with Yamla. A prior unblock hoped they had matured (on multiple projects), and further re-blocks were then earned also across multiple projects. Additionally, there are past block evasions issues not addressed here. The last unblock round read almost the same. I don't exactly like the "Send them to Simple to prove themselves approach", but it was available yet the user has no edits there since 2024. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Note, any admin is free to reinstate talk page access for this user without consulting me, if they think it would be helpful to this discussion. Please consider removing talk page access once the discussion is complete, if the user remains blocked. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose–I know what copyright is, indeed, as was previouslyindicated in unblock requests, which were later followed by more copyvio. I forgot to attach some sources, seems it wasn't always forgetfulness .
Considering the persistence of the past issues, and the similarity to past unblock requests, I would need to see evidence of an ability to edit constructively on another project before supporting an unblock. A December 2023 commons block followed shortly after with ceasing all editing project-wide doesn't make a great case. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 19:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This isn't the only set of problems with this user, they have also been very prolific with block evasion over the years, and denied some of it despite the clear signs but admitted it on other occasions. Even from their edits, nothing they have worked on over the years has been of any benefit to the project, and just detrimental overall. We've taken multiple chances with this user and had the football pulled away consistently every single time. The risks far outweigh the slim possibility of useful edits from this user. If not blocked they don't seem to be able to be a net asset. Canterbury Tailtalk20:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - This editor has gotten a lot of bites at the apple over the years. Given the myriad issues, it's really challenging to support this without them showing a consistent ability to contribute constructively and avoid these problems on another project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Opposewhat I can do is rebuild trust, even if it takes a while to do. - as others have said, this should be done before returning, at any other project where they're not currently blocked. Blue-Sonnet06:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Revoke TPA
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Senorghost00 competency and/or WP:IDHT concerns based on renewal of unsourced content additions
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Senorghost00 has again done the same thing as discussed in the in an ANI thread. They did finally respond on their talk page after the initial block after they began editing again without reacting to the block, as seen here, and @Blue-Sonnet and I both told Senorghost00 what the issue was after they appeared confused as to what happened and they did not respond further.
Today, Senorghost00 once again added unreferenced content to the exact same section. It should be noted that the previous edit they made to the Coaching changes section was referenced. Perhaps Senorghost00 is confused as to how to add citations to this particular section as it requires source editing, but because of the lack of communication it is unclear what the problem is. As such, it appears to me to be either a competency issue and/or WP:IDHT. Because of the competency concern that I have based on their one response, I've brought it here to just AN, but apologies if I should've brought it to AN/I instead. Raskuly🐰20:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking for a lift to my "All Things Michael Jacksonian" topic ban to participate in arbitration case
Latest comment: 2 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
hello. I just wrote a "my thoughts" post on the talk page of the evidence page for the Michael Jackson arbitration and it was suggested if I want to participate I shoukd request a ban lift here. I don't have all that more to add except I did have one more notion to share. Thanks. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
An arbcom case seems exactly the wrong moment to break a topic ban. I suggest self-reverting your comment there, as the case won't benefit from your involvement and you've broken your ban. Fences&Windows21:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the comment you wrote, I'm not sure that it's necessary (or a good idea) for you to participate - I presume you were pinged by accident or just to make you aware of the case.
If you had important/vital evidence & really needed to participate, I'd have been happy to support a temporary lifting of the ban. I just don't see that here, I'm afraid.
I also don't think this should be seen as a violation of the topic ban (in case anyone is worried about that) since it's a genuine error & you were directly pinged. Hopefully the admins agree with me on this. Blue-Sonnet00:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
ok I deleted my comment. The thing I wanted the arbitrators to be aware of was the [REMOVED.] That is probably what makes this topic fundamentally different (or perhaps similar!) to other contentious topics. I thought it woukd be useful color for the arbitration but I have no special knowledge aside from what I have read in Google News. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Bhdshoes2, when you are topic banned from Michael Jackson matters, it is a really bad idea for you to post approximately 90 words advocating your point of view regarding Jackson supporters and summarizing unspecified news articles. The purpose of your topic ban is to prevent that sort of input from you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Ok.. the first reply said I had nothing useful to contribute to the arb process so I wanted to explain what exactly I wanted to contribute. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
In WP:ARBIMH, ArbCom partly lifted several topic bans to let people participate in the case. ArbCom has the authority to lift or modify a community sanction, and while they generally don't do that, I'd be surprised if anyone objected to them using that power for a time-limited, page-limited exemption in this case, given that they—not the community—are the ones who know whether they actually want your participation. So @Bhdshoes2, I'd suggest that if you want to participate in the case, you ask the arbs if they would grant you a limited exemption. They will either say yes or no. 🤷 -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
ok makes sense. One of the editors thought it had to come here not to the arbs but I can try the arbs. Thanks Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AIV
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I would say it's done, but AIV is never done. It has recently become severely clogged by reports that don't belong there, usually about "obvious"/"LTA" sockpuppetry without a single diff link, recently blocked master name or immediately obviously actionable behavior, or about disruptive editing from years-old accounts that would be ideal for ANI instead. The new administrators shouldn't be afraid of declining reports. If it isn't obvious, it doesn't belong there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks so much for you help, yeah it has seemed recently there has been some reluctance to decline reports. – LuniZunie(talk)02:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
User:Davidstewartharvey changing content on multiple pages based on unsupported theory.
Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I'd just like to bring to your attention the fact that User:Davidstewartharvey has been changing content on multiple pages related to baked goods based on a non-standard theory of pastry only referring to leavened/yeasted baked products. Many of these changes have been reverted, but many are still current. The editor, following my prompt, has started a discussion on Talk:Pastry, but so far, they haven't received any responses. I think that until some kind of consensus is reached about the proper definition of "pastry", they should revert their edits. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Revirvlkodlaku has stated that I am making changes based upon an unbiased theory. The basis is based upon the standard culinary basis of pastry which is taught to chefs, that Pastry is made with an unleavened dough. This started when I came across the page pastries, which has items that are not made from pastry. In the talk page another editor already had stated this claim, because the page states pastries are made from pastry, and it contained non-pastry based products. I raised this on the WikiProject for Food and Drink but had no joy. So I started to make the necessary changes. Revirvlkodlaku took exception to this on Kolach (cake), when I changed it from Pastry to Sweet Bread in the lead and its category. May i point out that, that was already listed as sweet bread in the infobox, and is under the category of sweet bread. His objection was based upon generic term and doesn't strictly refer to the use of yeast. It is also more common and easily understood than "sweet bread". During the discussion, when I went to the Pastry page I noticed that it was incorrect, in that it does not mention it was an unleavened dough, so provided references that come from an Encyclopaedia on Food published by the Academic press and the State of Pennsylvania Health board. I also changed it to remove Viennoiserie, which as per the references on its own page (which i admit re-wrote), it is not a bread nor a pastry, and is also made with yeast. In addition I added that it is actually baked and fried goods, as their are pastry products made by Frying, aka Angel Wings and Samosa, and removed pictures of leavened products. If you look at the talk page you will see another editor has already questioned the confusion on the page.
The confusion is called by the North American term for pastries. Pastries in North America, as Merriam Webster shows is for "small sweet baked items" or a "a dough that is used to make pies and other baked goods and typically has a high fat content". But in the UK and other parts of the commonwealth "Cake" is used instead of Pastries, as per the Oxford Dictionary which says Pastry it is "a small cake made from pastry". In cooking terms Pastry means anything made with pastry - thats why when you ask Google assistant "Is a meat pie a pastry" it's answer is Yes, a meat pie is considered a pastry. The confusion is caused by the term Pastry Chef, which is an English translation of "chef pâtissier". Pâtisserie in France is a specialised bakery that focuses on pastries, cakes, and sweet confections. They don't sell Viennoiserie, which are made in Boulangerie, the bread making bakeries. However, as per Le Cordin Bleu cookery school, English language uses the word Pâtisserie liberally. A Croissant is not regarded as Pâtisserie in France or Belgium.
I would also like to highlight the Cinnamon Roll article, which is a trickier item. It can be made with Enriched bread dough, Viennoiserie or in some cases puff pastry. After asking the question on the talk page "This article seems to have combined two "cakes" into one. A cinnamon roll is made with pastry dough and originates probably from Sweden (called Kanelbullar but also known as a Bun) while a Cinnamon Bun is a sweet bread dough. Should we seperate out into two different articles or re-write to differentiate the differences?" an editor said we should name it a sweet roll based upon evidence. She is an American, and didn't say it should be called a pastry, but a sweet roll. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for admin help - repeated deletions in spite of notifications and warnings
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given your previous warning for blatantly violating your editing restriction, in my view the appropriate response to you doing so two more times, as documented in the thread you link, would be to block you for one or two weeks, not to lift the restriction. I might hesitate more if your RM comments at least showed that the restriction is no longer necessary, but Talk:Powerchip §Requested move 19 May 2026 is an incredibly poorly-argued move request, and shows the same misunderstanding of WP:OFFICIALNAME as in the March TBAN violation. My inclination here is to block but I will wait briefly in case someone objects. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@Tamzin: So, tell me—what should I do to ensure that I don't get blocked again for this reason, and at the same time, my conditional restriction is also lifted? I don't want to be blocked again, even if it's a temporary block. Would it be helpful if I revoke both of my requested moves/comments? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔09:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@Akshadev: The way to not get blocked is to not violate the restriction. The way to get the restriction lifted is to ask for it to be lifted, which you've done here, but usually people do not want to lift a restriction if the user is actively violating it. What the community will want to see is that you have complied with your restriction, understand why it was imposed (in this case, why others asked you to self-impose it), and have addressed those issues so that the restriction is no longer necessary.Blocks are preventative, not punitive, but we do use them as a deterrent to encourage people to comply with editing restrictions. If you can credibly commit to fully following this restriction going forward, then I don't see a need to block you, but you appeared to understand it the last time you were warned, and then still violated the restriction again. Could you go into more detail about why you thought it was okay to start these RMs, and what you've learned now? Also yes, it would be a good idea to retract the requests. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Apologies for the violation of restriction. It was not my intention to do it intentionally, however, I will remember that I'm currently restricted from participating in requested moves. Please cancel the idea (if possible) of blocking me again for the same reason. I'm currently working on articles related to space research, trying to make ISRO a good article and so on. Hope you will understand my condition.
I have honestly said everything I had to say. The further decision of all of you will be acceptable to me.
You asked me about the detail why I thought it was okay to start these RMs. Well to be honest, I had completely forgotten that I was under a restriction. But from now on, I won't forget that I have to ask for the restriction to be lifted first. That's all I had to say (as of now).
Okay. I think this can be left at an absolute last-chance warning, then, with the understanding that, since your previous block was indefinite, if you violate this restriction again the responding admin may choose to go straight back to indefinite, and probably should, since this warning serves the same purpose that an initial one-to-two-week block usually would. I would suggest that you close this appeal, as it is unlikely to succeed, but that's up to you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Restore the deleted page into my namespace
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I knew this felt familiar, I just couldn't place it! We never found out what they were referring to last time, either, despite Chris attempting to talk to them in Indonesian. Blue-Sonnet00:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Halo @~2026-30948-98, kami kesulitan memahami Anda karena pertanyaan Anda tidak begitu masuk akal dalam bahasa Inggris.
I wasn't too sure of the language that Val & Chris used, so I pasted it into Google translate to check. It seemed like it was worth another shot here, at least, once the link was brought up by JBL. I was wondering if they were the same LTA that's been reported (or a similar LTA that I've been dealing with recently), but the TAIV data didn't seem to match so I felt it best to leave it and just keep an eye on their future behaviour. Blue-Sonnet00:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree, the IP geolocated to Indonesia, and the TA seemed not to be a native English speaker, so I just decided to try Indonesian to see if that would work. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree, you're thinking this is providing PII? I mean, it's a country of 300 million. Open to your reasoning, though, if you think I'm overlooking something? Valereee (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
The standard that I got WMF Legal to agree to for publishing TAIV location information is "reasonably believed to be necessary" + "unless this information is precise enough that it could plausibly be used to identify the user to a greater degree than they have self-disclosed". I think there's no question on the second half here, given how large Indonesia is; the first half isn't quite as clear-cut as disclosing in cases of vandalism or sockpuppetry, but communication issues are still a form of disruptive editing, and if an admin has a good-faith belief that saying a TA's geolocation can help resolve that communication issue, in my opinion that's within the fairly broad allowance the WMF has given us. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd have interpreted country information as something identifying the user to a greater degree than they have self-disclosed as well, and identifying someone as editing from some countries may perhaps be a problem independently of its population size, and I'd personally still avoid doing this as I find it to be on thin ice, but I have no horses in this race. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Their Special:CentralAuth/~2026-28252-20, which is publicly available, shows they created a local account on idwiki before anyone linked to it here or at the previous discussion, so even without disclosing TAIV it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw. nilnz13:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
That was more of what I was hoping/looking for. In my eyes, if something like this had been the source of the information, everything would have been ideal to me. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
If you read the full sub-bullet in WP:TAIVDISCLOSE, country information is explicitly listed as a generally permissible disclosure. In that context, "identify[ing] the user" should be read to refer to things that make it possible to figure out which specific person someone is (e.g. the example in the following sentence about an ISP owned by a single person); otherwise the exception would apply to 100% of cases, since all geographic location narrows the set of possible identities to some degree. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
It depends on the country imo. Saying an account geolocates to Indonesia (population 288 million, area 1.9 million km²) is very different to saying an account geolocates to Luxembourg (population 632,000, area 2,500 km²). Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive editing / adding unsourced material by User:Daniel.9
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
multiple increasing warnings on the user's talk page including what exactly was added unsourced plus links to WP guidelines. User does not answer. Instead the user continues to add unsourced material even after the final warning: , . Additionally the user continues to mark edits as minor, even though the edits change the meaning of the content, again doing so after having been warned. The user was already blocked on Wikimedia Commons before. WikiPate (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
For the record, here's another unsourced change after multiple warnings at their talk page, yet in this edit the user did include a reference.--JetstreamerTalk14:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Second Opinion on closed WP:SPI Investigation
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The investigation was closed without any action, but I find myself perplexed at the rational and find it rather bizarre as I think there are multiple textbook WP:BADSOCK cases at play here.
I have had a poke around to see if processes exist for an appeal / second opinion but I cannot find anything other than ancient requests on the relevant talk page from a decade ago.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An attempt to appeal an AfC decision
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am formally requesting an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor to conduct a fresh, neutral review of my AfC draft for the feature film Faust: A Return from the Future (2018).This independent production, created almost entirely by a single female artist (director, writer, lead actress, composer, choreographer, cinematographer, editor, etc.), represents an exceptionally rare case of total authorship in cinema history. It was selected as the closing film of the Jaipur International Film Festival 2020, where the official festival press release explicitly described it as a "masterpiece in the world of cinema".Despite this, plus Greek national press coverage (Ta Nea, Zougla.gr, Kathimerini), Catalan press, Portuguese festival screenings (Cinecôa), a dedicated published analytical book, and an existing article on French Wikipedia, the draft continues to be declined under WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.I respectfully but firmly disagree with the narrow interpretation being applied. Festival curatorial judgment — especially when a festival publicly calls a work a "masterpiece" and selects it for closing night — constitutes meaningful independent recognition, not mere promotional material. The sources go well beyond simple announcements of existence and address the film's artistic and cultural significance.I have declared my COI and am working exclusively through the AfC process. I ask only for consistent application of Wikipedia's own guidelines. If the sources truly fall short, please explain specifically which additional type of coverage would be required for a film with this level of documented international recognition and singular authorship.I am available to provide archived sources, translations, or further revisions. Thank you for your attention.Maria Alexea (Mariaalexea) Mariaalexea (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Subject: Formal complaint and demand for independent oversight – Repeated rejection of Draft: Faust: A Return from the Future
To Wikipedia Administrators and the Arbitration Committee,I am Maria Alexea, creator of the independent feature film Faust: A Return from the Future (2018). I write to formally protest the repeated rejection of my draft article despite clear evidence of notability.This film was created in total artistic independence — I personally served as director, screenwriter, lead actress, choreographer, dancer, cinematographer, scenographer, costume designer, editor, composer, cellist, kithara performer, and adapter of Goethe’s material. This level of singular authorship by a female artist is virtually unprecedented in cinema history. The Jaipur International Film Festival officially selected it as the closing film in 2020 and publicly called it a "masterpiece".Despite this, plus:
Coverage in Greek national press (Ta Nea, Zougla.gr, Kathimerini)
Mentions in TheTOC and Diari de Girona
Screenings at Cinecôa (Portugal)
A full published analytical book dedicated to the film’s philosophy
An existing article on French Wikipedia
…English Wikipedia reviewers continue to reject the draft, claiming insufficient "significant coverage".Meanwhile, other Faust-related films with far more institutional backing (such as The Last Faust) receive articles with relative ease. My work stays in the spirit of Goethe’s humanistic vision. The pattern of rejection, combined with the simultaneous existence of other Faust productions, raises legitimate questions about selective enforcement and protection of certain narratives.I have already won court cases defending my intellectual property. My film has been plagiarized and copied, yet when I seek basic encyclopedic recognition for a work that achieved real international festival validation, I face repeated obstacles and accusations (including false claims that my text is AI-generated).I am not asking for special treatment. I am demanding consistent application of Wikipedia’s own rules. Festival curatorial decisions that publicly name a film a "masterpiece" and use it as closing night should count as significant coverage. Total one-person authorship should be treated as culturally notable. Multilingual independent press should not be dismissed simply because it is not in English or from major anglophone outlets.I request:
An immediate, truly independent review of the draft by uninvolved administrators.
A clear explanation why the Jaipur "masterpiece" designation and closing film status is considered meaningless.
Permission to include the official film poster under fair use, as is standard for virtually every other film article.
Transparency on why similar or lesser productions appear to face lower barriers.
Wikipedia claims to document human culture, not merely reinforce existing industry power structures. My film exists. It has been recognized internationally. It deserves fair evaluation free from apparent institutional gatekeeping.I await your response.Maria Alexea
Mariaalexea (talk)
www.mariaalexea.com
24 May 2026 Mariaalexea (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I request: An immediate, truly independent review of the draft by uninvolved administrators.
Administrators have no unique authority or expertise in reviewing draft articles. Your thread at the Articles for Creation helpdesk has been replied to by a number of independent editors who have all agreed your draft is unfit for publication.
A clear explanation why the Jaipur "masterpiece" designation and closing film status is considered meaningless
Permission to include the official film poster under fair use, as is standard for virtually every other film article.
Entirely moot at this stage as you don't yet have an article. Focus on that first.
Transparency on why similar or lesser productions appear to face lower barriers.
Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer-driven project with a finite number of volunteers. We cannot be everywhere at once, and for one reason or another there are a great many articles here that have not been subject to appropriate levels of scrutiny, and so may not meet our standards. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Athanelar (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will address it directly and on record.Everything said in this discussion is publicly recorded and will remain visible. Nothing is hidden under the light. We are in an era of full disclosure, and these exchanges are now part of the permanent public archive.You state that administrators have “no unique authority” in reviewing drafts. Yet when multiple editors reach the same conclusion, you treat it as settled consensus. This creates a convenient shield: a small group of editors can repeatedly reject a submission, and any request for higher review is dismissed because “admins have no special power.” This is circular logic that protects the status quo.On your specific points:
Request for immediate, truly independent review by uninvolved administrators
I formally renew this request. Multiple editors have now converged on rejection. At this point, a fresh look by completely uninvolved experienced administrators or a broader community review is reasonable and necessary for fairness.
Why the Jaipur “masterpiece” designation and closing film status is considered meaningless
You say it has “no bearing” on notability requirements. This is an extraordinary position. An established international film festival officially calls a work a “masterpiece in the world of cinema”, selects it as closing film, and this is reported by national media. If even this level of external institutional recognition carries zero weight, then please explain openly: what exactly does count for a radically independent international production?
Fair use film poster
Noted. This becomes relevant the moment the article exists.
Why similar or lesser productions face lower barriers
The standard answer “WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS” is insufficient when the pattern is consistent. The Last Faust, for example, was accepted with significantly less radical independence and more conventional coverage. My film has stronger claims to uniqueness and documented festival validation, yet faces repeated rejection. Acknowledging that some articles exist that “may not meet our standards” while using that as justification to block others only highlights the problem.
Wikipedia is volunteer-driven, yes. But volunteers still have a duty to apply policies consistently and transparently, especially when a work demonstrates genuine artistic singularity.I therefore repeat my core request:
An immediate, neutral, independent review of the draft by uninvolved administrators or a wider community discussion.The film exists. It has international recognition. The documentation is here. The conversation is fully recorded.Mariaalexea (talk) Mariaalexea (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting an assessment of consensus
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've added a proposal for an interim solution, which might be easier to close. But seconding the request to have the more meaty initial proposal closed asap. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
RPP is backlogged
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Unless it's been backlogged for a few days or so, these notifications are not really required. It's just a bit of a cycle as with most request-type pages. qedk (t愛c)12:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
No worries - the only metric I have was my own report which was 12 hours... that's not a complaint by any means (we're all volunteers), I just found it unusual:-) Danners430tweaks made12:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Editor once blocked from a page still edit-warring
Latest comment: 2 months ago12 comments6 people in discussion
A user named Tonyy Starkk who was previously blocked from editing the page Retro (film) is still edit warring and still spamming the page with their agenda-driven edits. It is even impossible to start new discussions on the talk page with this sort of behaviour. I believe this user should be once again blocked from editing the page. ~2026-31522-03 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
This appears to be the same user I had previously raised concerns about. I have already addressed this pattern of disruptive editing and related conduct earlier at the Administrators' Noticeboard, including the following discussions: and
The current behaviour on the Retro article follows a similar pattern of persistent, disruptive, and highly obsessive editing focused on the same topic area, despite repeated concerns already having been raised earlier. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The IP has again posted an abusive edit summary stating: "Reverted vandalism. Go and discuss on the talk page like an obedient who*e you bi*ch"
This appears to be part of the same ongoing pattern of harassment and disruptive behaviour previously reported. The user seems to be repeatedly switching between multiple IP accounts primarily to continue personal attacks, abusive edit summaries, and disruption related to the Retro article and associated discussions. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Maybe the abuses keep coming because you keep asking for it. Why don't you try minding your own business? Nobody else seems to have a problem with the edits at Retro. The film is already a year old. There was a reason you were blocked from editing that page in the first place. If you don't agree with the edits, request other editors to make the edits for you. ~2026-31519-60 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I have stated multiple times that there is already a detailed discussion and consensus regarding this issue at:
You continue removing the consensual version and adding disputed sources without first discussing them on the talk page. My reversions are only restoring the version that reflects the existing consensus from that discussion.
At this point, I do not wish to continue arguing over the same matter further and would prefer that administrators review the situation and take an appropriate call on it. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Anyone can edit an article, sure. But not everyone edits it with intelligence. Freedom to edit doesn’t magically make every opinion worth listening to. ~2026-31519-60 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
TA blocked indefinitely for personal attacks. They can explain themselves on their talkpage, their conduct isn't remotely acceptable. Acroterion(talk)12:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Given the repeated long-term disruption, abusive behaviour, and IP-hopping on this article, I request administrators to consider indefinite extended protection for the page, as this issue has recurred multiple times over a long period. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Ignoring that this thread should have been at ANI and not here, the general admin's noticeboards are a reasonable place to request protection in response to actions discussed in the thread. They may not necessarily receive an answer here, which differs from RFPP where one is guaranteed to get one of accept/decline. Izno (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
These two TAs (presumably the same person) have inundated AFC with mass submissions of one-line stubs concerning astronomical objects, that are both lacking context/necessary background information, and most definitely do not demonstrate notability. I just declined one batch, only to realize that there was at least a second batch further down in the queue. I'm not aware of any way to automate the AFCH script but I really don't want to have to keep declining en masse what is essentially multiple instances of the exact same thing. Rather quite tedious. What do to from here? Please move to ANI or elsewhere if more appropriate, I don't consider this to be an urgent behavioral problem, at least not yet, but it still needs admin attention, hence why I'm starting here Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Nominated pages were merged out of process, and the nomination is formatted in a misleading manner. What should be done? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
If I have it correct, they were nominated for merging at AfD but less than a day later, while that discussion was open and before anyone had opined on the merits or otherwise of the nomination a different editor boldly merged them without closing the discussion? Presumably you oppose the merge? If all that is correct then I suggest you explain this in detail on the AfD page and formally oppose the merge.
It's worth noting that this is hardly the first time that FaviFake (who merged) has been here for a bull-in-a-chinashop approach to editing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
As ScrubbedFalcon said in their comment below, I did not see the discussion because the nominator didn't follow the instructions correctly. If the nominator had followed WP:AFD2 or WP:BUNDLE, the templates would have pointed to the AfD discussion rather than the empty talk pages.I fix dozens of incorrect nominations every week, and I can't possibly check every contribution of every editor involved in the tagging to make sure they haven't opened an AfD incorrectly in addition to tagging the articles. Now that Twinkle and the AfD instructions have been updated, nominators should just follow those. FaviFake (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
It seems like the primary issue is that we haven't finished the PAM-AfD merge process yet and its difficult to nominate multiple pages for merging into some third page at the moment. The nominator seems to have nominated the proposed destination article at AfD and added the two proposed source articles as a bundled nom. It would have been better if they nominated one of the proposed source articles for merging and then added the other source article into the bundled nom, but I can understand how the mistake was made.I also understand why Favi went ahead with the bold merge because the nominator used {{Merge to}} on the two source pages which linked to a non existent article talk page discussion instead of following the instructions at WP:MERGE and WP:AFD2 and placing the correct AfD template, see for example . Favi and others have been working hard to reduce the backlogs in the old template categories so that they can be turned into wrappers per a related TfD consensus. I can see how Favi may not have been aware of the AfD discussion since it wasn't properly linked and just went ahead with a bold merge to keep the backlog clear. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
No worries! We all make mistakes. I've been trying to improve the AfD instructions to make it easier for editors to understand the benefits of using Twinkle over the manual method. Could you kindly explain what led you to choose the manual method over Twinkle? Were you aware of it prior to initiating the nomination? We could use your explanation to improve the guidance there. FaviFake (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
I thought Twinkle was a tool for administrators because it has a rollback function, user warnings, and also the icon was an illustration of a police officer. That is, I believe my skills are not sufficient to use Twinkle. However, since I'm currently considering nominating another article for PAM (See WP:TH#Drafts that may be merged into existing articles), it might be a good idea to practice using Twinkle.--SilverMatsu (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! Even a new editor can and should use Twinkle, especially for XfD. If you'll try to nominate an article for merging, I'd love it if you could do it using Twinkle and let me know how it goes, any questions you have or steps you were confused by. Do you think you'd still come to the conclusion that Twinkle is for administrators after reading the updated AfD instructions? Also, I'm curious about how you found out about the |afd= parameter? It only appears in the AfD instructions, but you didn't follow those in this case, so I wonder whether there might be another page that needs updating. FaviFake (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
That was one of the reasons why the new logo was adopted in December 2025. (Another reason was negative connotations of police in the African-American community.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
FYI As a non-admin who uses Twinkle, it's really useful when it comes to basic things like welcoming new editors, quickly giving a warning with helpful links to the relevant policy pages, and reporting to noticeboards (e.g. WP:AIV). You can add additional info to a lot of the templates, or just go in after submission and tailor them if you prefer. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
This appears to be a content dispute and inappropriate for this noticeboard. You should be discussing this on the article's talk page, not here. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Renamed user 816080d7b8b07f87ff87886c6eebbd3a
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If they vanished, why are their user and user talk pages still extant? There are people wishing a courtesy vanished user "happy first edit day". Why? --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 17:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
The simple answer to the former is that the vanishing process doesn't remove any of that information. I can't say anything about the latter though. Izno (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PawPatroler's talk page
Latest comment: 2 months ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PawPatroler was blocked last July and subsequently globally locked after repeatedly emailing users across multiple projects asking for an unblock. After the global lock they began emailing administrators of various other wiki websites like RationalWiki, MarioWiki, Coasterpedia, and many others; people began discussing these instances on PawPatroler's talk page. I closed the conversation in September in an effort to WP:DENY recognition.
In April a new conversation was started on the user talk page and is currently being used as a de facto forum to advertise PawPatroler's efforts, publicly post the text of their appeal, and talk about efforts to (for some reason) get in touch with PawPatroler.
I removed that most recent conversation from the page, but it was restored by It's moon. Since a user talk page is not a forum to discuss/advertise that user's activity on other websites, would an administrator please blank and apply the WP:GOLDLOCK? --tony14:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
This particular user talk page is only able to be (and is actively being) used as a forum to chat about that user's behavior on the wider internet, and also to post messages on the user's behalf. The user, who Yamlaposits is actually an LTA, is harassing external websites in an (apparently fruitful) effort to receive attention. They have no on-wiki conduct to discuss because they've been g-locked since August. The purpose of a user talk page is to discuss the edits of a user; all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. The purpose of a user talk page is probably not gravedancing or proxying. --tony15:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
The user is the one that has made their off wiki conduct relevant to Wikipedia. This is not gravedancing, it is awareness. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
It's not awareness, it's attention. Having people post about their antics and appeals on that user talk page is obviously the goal of this LTA. If we're happy to host that space for them then I'm happy to have been corrected. tony19:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree that we should be mindful of WP:DENY. However, I think tracking long-term abuse is necessary for identifying any sockpuppets, as well as cross-wiki coordination and moderation, and does not fall under gravedancing or proxying. Blanking or deleting past vandalism record would probably go against WP:TPO. I also believe this case is egregious enough to warrant listing the details on a WP:LTA subpage. It's moon (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm kind of torn. On one hand, I don't really see the point of all the "Hey this editors asked me at Nintendowiki to get unblocked on Wikipedia" comments. It's not like that's ever going to get them back on Wikipedia. I already made it clear last year that no unblock request would work, it's clearly a CIR case.
At the same time, it's fine to discuss on the talk page if there any potential disruptions to Wikipedia itself. Like if he's actually socking or something. But there's no real point in documenting every time he emails a non-admin off wiki about being unblocked, no. Sergecross73msg me19:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I've left a note on the talk page on what is, and is not, helpful to track on their talk page. My two cents is that this is better than wholesale protection. If consensus swings a different way over time, that's fine too, and we can adjust accordingly. Sergecross73msg me19:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
In addition to what others have said above, if there are specific other editors who are treating this page like a forum then they should be warned to stop doing that. If they continue then they can be blocked from the page without disrupting those who are using it for its intended purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I think no (further) action is needed. Two established users who appear to have been approached on other wikis placed reasonable statements to that effect on the talk page. One en.wp new-ish user did so as well, with arguably a bit too much unnecessary detail, but not problematic (and I see no reason to do anything other than AGF as to their motivations). Serge has now placed a clarifying note. It seems the lowest-effort, lowest-friction, and best WP:DENY solution is now to do nothing, and trust to editor judgment should they get approached off-wiki and then go to this banned editor's talk page. Martinp (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion
66 discussions, including one that has been unclosed since February 1! I've closed a bunch myself over the last few days, but would really appreciate others helping out. * Pppery *in solidarity18:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
We really just need to recruit more admins, especially any trustworthy people with good judgement who are active in these areas that get backlogged. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could notrailroad productive admins who deal with niche areas like this off the website completely, based on shaky and even misleading "evidence", and a load of people who add their names to recall petitions without reading the discussion anyway? Just a mad thought. Black Kite (talk)12:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Part of the backlog issue here appears to be that many of these nominations could be handled by speedy tags / editors making uncontroversial moves to Commons without seeking consensus at FFD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
BLPVIO
Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I saw a BLP violation as I was going through my watchlist, because it is on an article I contributed to. However, the article is within the scope of my TBAN. Is there a way to report the violation without it being considered "proxying" or a violation of my TBAN? TurboSuperA+[talk]17:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.
However, there are editors who are just itching for a chance to indef me, and I know better than to walk on the edge, lest I be pushed into the abyss. TurboSuperA+[talk]18:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
I have emailed you now. It has been reported and it is out of my hands, regardless of the outcome. I'm not going to mention it again. As far as I'm concerned, this thread can be closed. Thank you. TurboSuperA+[talk]18:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
recent Balkans anonymous abuser, part 2
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I wonder if it's worth the effort or good practice to also block the temporary accounts used. Maybe to be able to connect the dots easier in the future? --Joy (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Changes to the functionaries team, June 2026
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At their request, the oversight permission of L235(talk·contribs) is removed. The committee sincerely thanks L235 for their service as an oversighter.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am a real person trying to fix my beginner mistakes.
The facts are entirely true: I accidentally made two accounts simultaneously with my only email in both – I ONLY WANT TO KEEP “giorgiousa”.
In addition to this, I wish to share an experience of my own.
My physician has recommended that I maintain my intellectual activity through the study, writing, reading, and acquiring knowledge. It is partly this reason why I got fascinated with Wikipedia since all of this can be found here. I have enjoyed studying history and especially theatrical and cultural history and I have always found it to be both beneficial and enjoyable.
Although I might have made some mistakes along the way in the learning process, my goal was merely to participate in such a project where I could not only contribute but also learn and stay intellectually active.
I would also like to mention that I live with my family, including my brother and my son. Both of them used Wikipedia years ago, although they are not active users today. I do not know whether that is relevant, but I wanted to mention it in case it helps explain any confusion.
I also want to openly clarify the history of this article topic.
A few days ago I mentioned to my family that I wanted to learn how to use Wikipedia.
They mentioned they had attempted to draft an article on this exact subject.
They suggested it would be a good topic for me and I agree.
I am a completely new editor acting entirely on my own initiative.
Since yesterday, the same person from Wikipedia was accusing me of bad things causing me stress and scared. When commenting with others my bad experience people is mentioning to me that probably that person is breaking Wikipedia rules that is call, Please do not bite the newcomers? Is that true?...well this person is exactly doing that to me, and I am very respectful.
The Mentor was assigned to me revised today my draft. The mentor is very nice.
He recommended me to add a few more sources.
I was working hard to get them since the subject is over 50 years old.
When I was ready to insert them in the draft, AGAIN the same person STOPPED me from doing it..
I was following my mentor instructions.
Please help me. I only ask for the community’s patience as I learn how to properly format and source this article independently according to Wikipedia standards. Thank you in advance for your help. Giorgiousa (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Giorgiousa, it looks like you've only been blocked from editing one single draft article for 72 hours whilst administrators try to untangle everything and figure out what's going on.
We're all volunteers here - including the administrators - so please be patient whilst they look into your case and determine the best course of action going forwards.
It's good that you've been told to keep mentally active, however this website is an encyclopedia that is edited by hundreds of thousands of editors and read by millions of people every day, so we need to make sure it's running as smoothly as possible. You have posted on the investigation page a few times, so you know where it is and can see what's happening just as quickly as anyone else can - nothing else can be done until the investigation is completed. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity04:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Nicole Eggert is not an "actor", she is an actress
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move request: Music creator
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there! A new editor has created an article at Category:Music curator when clearly they meant Draft:Music curator. As a category page, us ordinary mortals can't move it (and the RM template rejects attempts to add it to Uncontroversial Moves) so I thought I'd ask someone here with a mop to do the job, please. • afranticturtle🐢 solidarity13:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: The article was tagged for speedy deletion per G11 and G15. It is clearly LLM-generated and promotes several people and companies listed as examples. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2026
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'm reporting the constant false accusations made to me via Wikipedia contributors. I've been blocked from article creations and editing via contributor, Star Mississippi. What started as a simple joy to contribute, support and edit articles has become exhausting due to the pattern of contributors accusing me of accepting undisclosed payments, which I've never done. If I was accepting payment, I would disclose this to Wikipedia. Not everyone (or at least I thought) accepts money. Perhaps there are a lot of contributors who do, but to be continuously accused when I've never said or implied any of the such, is very odd behaviour.
I would like this contributor to be blocked from my page due to the continued false accusations made against me. There is literally no evidence, because I've never accepted any money from anyone. I have found today that my employer does have a small wikipedia page, but I'm not editing that. I'd only do it if I was paid, and even then that'll be arduous.
Please do not worry about @Lesanimas17 not doing the required notifications. They are an unexperienced editor and I was aware they'd be posting this. In the future, you should follow the guidelines though when you open ANI threads.
You have always been able to edit and update articles in peace. You have lost access to move and create them due to concerns about your editing raised by multiple editors over the course of your tenure and your unwillingness to edit collaboratively and make clear disclosures. I will take no action on your unblock, and would not have anyway since those are best left for uninvolved editors. I have not posted on your Talk since you asked that I not other than to say there was no issue with you posting this. You did not need to open this thread for that outcome and your unblock request is in the queue.
Even you aren't being paid, you can still have a conflict of interest if you are involved with the company/organization/person in question. Please disclose any relations you have, or else this block will continue. ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Star is an administrator and only blocked you from moving pages and files - you can do anything else on Wikipedia except that.
So we can get the COI concerns sorted out once and for all, do you have any connection at all to the subjects of your edits? You might know then personally, work with/for them, etc.
I have 3 main articles currently under review, so the block impacts this greatly. Hayette Ndiaye, Nektar Papazian Andreeff and Senhor João da Costa (well, this had a speedy deletion tag and was instantly removed). All details are neutral and factual. However with Andreeff, there was an initial issue about when she passed, due to conflicting sources. I then found a good source. I don't/didn't know any of them personally (two have passed away). Andreeff was a prominent Iranian architect. Ndiaye has a French wikipedia, so the reasoning behind the last submission didn't make sense to me.
I do have vast knowledge in architecture in general, amongst other areas and industries. I have two articles I'm working on Pinder & Shashore because they are prominent. I will also be re-starting the biography of architect João da Costa (João Baptista da Costa not to be confused with the painter. There are other articles I've created that have been denied, and I've given up on them because I keep being told I'm using LLM, when I'm clearly not. It's very demotivating to keep being told I'm using LLM. Additionally, If I was undertaking any of this work paid, I would've disclosed this already. I'm not sure why I'm constantly being asked this. Again, demotivating. There is no conflict of interest. If there is/was, I would've raised this.
@Star Mississippi Could you provide clear examples of how I'm now unwilling 'to edit collaboratively'? This statement requires clear documented facts because I'm definitely not unwilling. I've had an editor (@Kowal2701) remove majority of my contributions via Architecture of Africa page. Some of my edits are still on the page. The first sentence and group of photos on the right-hand side (except one) are examples. Just to clarify some of the photos already exist on Wiki Commons, so I don't understand how everything I edit is now assumed as LLM. Anyway, this editor has now removed majority of my contributions and stated how all of the photos and texts are now LLM, which isn't even true. I spent hours researching, reading, editing and contributing to past editions. They've also stated how one of my citations can't be justified because it comes in a book form and because they can't access it, it can't be verified. I was quite surprised to hear this. I recognise that not all editors have a background in academia, but this dismissal of my citation was peculiar. Anyway, I found online examples to support my citation, but not all of my citations I use are online. I've contributed to multiple pages like Candido Da Rocha, Architecture etc with no COI and it felt good contributing with factual information that I've either read, have knowledge about (with supported citations) or researched. Lesanimas17 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Is there some reason you didn't comment at all on any possible connection to Alisha Morenike Fisher despite Draft:Alisha Morenike Fisher being one of your most edited pages and you must know it's where there have been particular concerns about a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Dear @Nil Einne, there is no COI with any edits or articles made. My most edited post is most likely between Candido Da Rocha and Architecture of Africa. Review the history and ensure your facts are correct please. I've written a message about Draft:Alisha Morenike Fisher and edited this draft. I also tried to move the page and somehow I still received feedback. The most issues and concerns I've had are:
1) Architecture of Africa (accused of LLM, despite some of my contributions still existing in the article. Since this article, I've received 3 different accusations of LLM. This wikipage is also quite messy. Quite a bit of it doesn't make sense.)
3) Draft:Hayette Ndiaye on 28 February 2026 (where I've been told to tone down the praise because she apparently is just an architect, when she is the first Chadian architect of her stature. I did tone it down and since February I've been learning to keep within wiki's language styles). Anyway, this no longer matters since 21 March, another contributor has successfully stepped in to ensure Hayatte Ndiaye has a page. I'm glad, because getting wikipages for women seems to be a battlefield. Anytime I edit or create about men, there are no issues. If you could speedy delete my draft that would be appreciated.
So, again No. Before these edits and article creations, I've had no issues of contributing. All issues started when I edited Architecture of Africa. This has been my main problem of constant accusations. I would like this to be looked into further, thanks. Lesanimas17 (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
You response is still very unclear almost like you're purposely evading the question. Can you please just clearly state whether you have any connection to Alisha Morenike Fisher? Please answer that question rather than some other question. (If you want to make additional statements, whatever. But don't make only these other statements since plenty of editors use such ambiguous statements to evade the question.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
BTW, by my count you have 17 edits to Architecture of Africa, 12 edits to Hayette Ndiaye and 13 edits to Alisha Morenike Fisher. I'm not an admin so have no idea how many edits you made to Senhor João da Costa. So I still think it's reasonable to say Alisha Morenike Fisher is one of your most edited pages. But in any case, I don't really care if you want to say it's not. I'm much more concerned about getting a clear answer from you without all the other unnecessary stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Dear @Nil Einne you stated it's my 'most edited' page. It's not. The first line states, 'there is no COI with any edits or articles made.' That is very clear. I stated further along, 'So, again No'. So, this means no. To also re-state earlier accusations, I have not accepted any undisclosed payments. If I ever receive payment, I would disclosed it. I'm not evading any questions. I have communicated clearly prior and would like these accusations to stop now. It's becoming harassment. Lesanimas17 (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
You weren't asked if you have a COI. You were asked if you have any connection to Alisha Morenike Fisher. Can you answer that, yes or no? People choose words for a reason, you seem to be avoiding saying if you have a connection. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
According to the CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gezjoh-7hopbo, the accounts Gezjoh-7hopbo, Trackstar2122 and this Lesanimas17 "appear to be controlled by the same person". The account Trackstar2122 was once known as Alishamorenike and Alishamorenike1703. (The account Gezjoh-7hopbo was known as Mbteam012.) Can you clarify why you have edited under an account which was called Alishamorenike and Alishamorenike1703 if you have no connection to Alisha Morenike Fisher? Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
You named your account after someone you have no connection to? I'd also note that given the edit history, the Mb in Mbteam012 seems to be a reference to Migrant Bureau. Alisha Morenike Fisher has been described as the founding-director, founder or principal project manager of Migrant Bureau . Are you saying you also have no connection to Migrant Bureau but decided to give your account the name Mbteam12 while editing articles related to Migrant Bureau or it's its founder? Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC) 10:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
To state what should be obvious, when you are editing articles which are related to Alisha Morenike Fisher and Migrant Bureau and name your account after either her or something she founded, it's quite hard to believe you have no connection. The only vaguely plausible story I've heard before has been when someone has said they're a fan of person A and that's why they chose the name but you didn't say that and in any case while it's plausible for a celebrity, it's much more hard to believe for someone who's not well known, and especially for a name like Mbteam. If Alisha Morenike Fisher had founded a company called Lesanimas Design, then yes I would be asking about this. Since AFAIK she has no connection to anything called Lesanimas, I have no reason to think that name is related to her anymore than I think the names Trackstar or Gezjoh are connected to her. None of that explains why you did name yourself after her and stuff connected to her earlier on despite having no connection to her. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not using LLM's to reply back. There's definitely an obsession with accusing contributors of LLM use on Wiki.
If you wish to ban me indef from Wiki, so be it. I'm not going convince you otherwise. Wiki has a lot of inaccuracies and I was supporting the need for better citations and factual information. Take care Lesanimas17 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
It's good to hear that your personal experience clouds over understanding. Let me know once you've worked out how 012 out of 'Mbteam012' connects to 'Migrant Bureau'. Maybe you can also tell me what '1703' means from 'Alishamorenike1703'. I have no further interest contributing to wiki at this time. Lesanimas17 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I suggest a simple indef for Lesanimas17 and any accounts associated with them that remain unblocked. I see little need to discuss anything further. If they'd been honest about a connection to Alisha Morenike Fisher we could have move on to LLM use concerns. But their statements above suggest we're beyond that point. Perhaps they can convince an admin to allow them back, but I doubt it. I also don't think we need a cban, I feel confident this is something we can leave to admin discretion. It is possible that the reason for the above is because they're using LLMs to reply for them and these pushed them into such an unfortunate corner. The reasons don't matter a great deal IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Lesanimas has been given plenty of opportunity to come clean on their COI, which they've not only failed to do but have repeatedly falsely denied. I've consequently blocked these accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SGML edit war
Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I spoke easily verifiable well sourced truth on sgml, xml, html, xhtml and got run over by power abusers. See talk page of the article. I got restricted from editing it and an editing protection has been put onto the article to protect what are obvious falsehoods to any person technically knowledgeble on this subject. Read the talk page of the article and the html5 standard. It's all there. I request help in finding consensus and the page being unlocked to other people. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
You were blocked temporarily from one page for violating the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy and now appear to be forum shopping to try to get your preferred edit made by someone else. Administrators don't deal with content disputes, they deal with behavioural problems - such as edit warring.
Please read the Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough essay then return to editing within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In the meantime, a consensus can be formed on the article Talk page without the need for administrative input.
I also want to stress that it is not at all acceptable to attack other editors by calling them "power abusers" - especially across multiple pages and noticeboards. If you carry on doing that, you may lose access to editing Wikipedia entirely. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity11:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not forum shopping and power abuse is not an insult. Nowhere did I tell you to agree with me. I said "finding consensus" which means joining the debate and making up your own mind. Make wikipedias cofounder happy, not sad. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
You posted here at the Administrators noticeboard, the NPOV noticeboard , the article Talk page and had already discussed this on the edit warring noticeboard.
Only the last two were really appropriate/necessary and the first two could easily be defined as forum shopping, especially since they were raised only 90 minutes apart.
Calling fellow editors abusers of power and bullies is a personal attack - you're talking about the editor as a person, not their edits.
Regardless, it's best if this discussion ends here and consensus is reached on the article Talk page instead; administrators cannot help with content disputes like this. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity20:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't think I'm being persecuted but wikipedia is indeed very hostile and if you make enemies they go through your edit history and try to find lacking citations to mass reverse stuff out of spite. This is a common pattern. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
At least someone will hopefully read it now. I hate being helpless against power abuse but no one except my bullies care about me.
We don't know - or care - about who you are. We only care about what you do on Wikipedia. We have no way of telling you apart from any of the hundreds of thousands of other editors here.
If someone edits poorly then it's likely that another editor might look through their history to see whether there are any other problems that need addressing; this is a normal part of Wikipedia and happens every day. It's also why everyone's edit history is public.
I don't see any evidence of you being singled out or bullied in any way, or bring treated differently to anyone else here. Instead, I see a standard content dispute that got out of hand when you decided to break this websites edit warring policy.
This could (and should) have been resolved through civilised discussion using the WP:BRD process - things didn't need to go this far.
If you don't agree with the way Wikipedia works or find it too stressful, it might be best if you reconsider editing here for your own wellbeing. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity20:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problematic behavior of Al-Hilali Z
Latest comment: 2 months ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Hello, I wanted to avoid getting to this point, but I think I've done everything I could to try and resolve this.
All of this is characterized by blatant bad faith and a complete lack of neutrality on Daghaghra. As can be seen in my latest complaint, for example, he dismisses historians' sources on the grounds that what they say is false and that the medieval author he cites doesn't report it, and then demands that I go and study the medieval historian myself and provide proof of this. "...but actually a source used by the user Mhmdgrd litteraly dont talk about the tribe, he claim that Ibn Khaldun told something about them, but litteraly not."
He had used another historian's source in the introduction to the article (Mohamed Hassen, source 1), however I did not have access to it, and it seems to be the most reliable and modern source. He omitted the fact that this source also supported my view and reported the tribe as Berber with more precise details.
He bases all of these arguments on a work that does not come from a specialist, but the one on the article page describes him as a historian (article origin section: They are a Bedouin[3][4][5][6][7] tribe from the Bani Sulaym[8][9] confederation, like many historian said, like Mohamed Bouzerara, a Tunisian historian from Tataouine., which makes it a misuse of source because after verification he admitted that he was indeed not one. And he goes on to say this time (without proof) that he is the manager of the Remada Cultural Center, which still does not make him a historian or specialist in the field.
He puts several sources together, some claiming to support his position, but after verification, this is not the case, and he is content with vague answers that drown the discussion page in a debate full of sophistry that leads nowhere and makes the third-party contributor lose track ( like here, here or here).
With good faith, it's clear this matter could have been easily resolved, but the way we're collaborating is appalling, bordering on the absurd. I believe all articles, regardless of the subject, deserve quality writing; there are plenty of good articles out there, so why shouldn't this one have the same? We're stuck in its qualitative development, it's becoming a problem. I've done everything I can, including discussions and RFCs, but it doesn't seem to be leading anywhere.
This is the second time you've brought them to a noticeboard without telling them (and without providing any diffs), this is not optional. I've explained this to you before. I will notify them, but you will need to provide evidence in the form of specific diffs to support your allegations. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity22:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Just to be clear, administrators deal with long-term, chronic behavioural issues that cannot be resolved using other dispute resolution methods, or are so severe that dispute resolution isn't appropriate. They do not deal with content disputes - if this is a content dispute then the report will likely be closed.
As the reporting editor, it is your responsibility to show that things have gone this far in your report; diffs are required so that others don't need to dig through the history to try to figure out which edits you're referring to. Blue-SonnetIn solidarity22:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, thank you. Sorry for forgetting to inform the other person concerned. I will try the conflict resolution method even though I have little hope. If it fails again, I will come back here unless there is a better alternative. Mhmdgrd (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Stop copy-paste everytime the same thing. You are obviously lying in the RFC, you didn't talk about all the sources i putted telling that they are Arabs and even the last edit you made was a pov-pushing. You have only source telling that the Daghaghra are berbers, only one, from André Louis. This debate goes too far, and litteraly i can't accept anymore what is happening, you only have one source, i have many, from Mohamed Bouzerara who are the responsible of the REMADA CULTURAL CENTER, but you are lying about him telling that he is just a random radio guy (he litteraly just made promotion of his books, like many writers), and other sources that you dont even talk about in the RFC. You benefit that the debate is long and the peoples you try to bring in will not have the patience to check all. Im litteraly all long citing sources and you behavior is already known on the french side of Wikipedia. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised that thus does not seem to be covered by an official contentious topic. Surely we have seen enough disruption in the area of Arab-Berber relations for it to be declared one? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
To be honest, it's a small, isolated tribe; I don't know if it has the necessary notoriety. But with all the evidence that exists, if we do the same thing, everything related to Berber culture and the Maghreb could become a source of discord, in my opinion. I would just like us to use quality sources, and what they say is something that's perfectly feasible. Mhmdgrd (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
@Untamed1910 semi-protection does block IPs (and temporary account users) from editing the talk page. The log states it was semi-protected in 2009 due to persistent harassment. It looks like the LTA is still active, but whether they are still targetting ChrisP2K5 I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
The reason why I requested protection was because of repeated incidents involving anonymous IP address users, most of which were proven to be Hdayejr. EDIT: I would also like to add that I did receive a notification before Thryduulf sent me one. One of the WikiBots sends me notifications whenever my name is mentioned; I did not need the anonymous IP user to tell me. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
I have very good reason to suspect that this user is Hdayejr because of the pattern of behavior. If you look closely at this person’s pattern of edits, which have been done under several different IP addresses, my edits seem to be solely targeted. And every time that I’ve raised the concern that the person may be Hdayejr, the edits have resumed using a different IP address. This is the third different IP address this person has used. Call me crazy if you must but this can’t be coincidence. As far as the article linked to here is concerned, the edit made the page unreadable and basically left it with no real reason to stand as it was, I suggested that the user nominate it for deletion. It has not been, and honestly I would think that if there isn’t enough information available to satisfy Wiki standards on it then the page shouldn’t be up. But that is neither here nor there.
As far as some of the other behavior that’s being cited here by this anonymous IP address user, another reasons why I contend this is Hdayejr is in his statement heading this submission. He may claim Hdayejr has made no attempt to get back through sockpuppetry, but that is clearly false because of various attempts I have made the admins aware of over the intervening years. Hdayejr has also said he will “make sure I’m off Wikipedia” in the past and I see no reason to believe that he wouldn’t try again if he so desired. I have kept pretty much on the straight and narrow for most of the time that this anonymous IP address user has cited (I will freely admit I’ve had a couple of troublesome incidents but have stayed out of trouble otherwise), and I don’t appreciate being dragged into this under largely misguided pretenses by someone who clearly has a grudge with me for some reason I wish I knew.
If this person is not Hdayejr, I will apologize. But the pattern of behavior is there, and I would like to know if there’s a way to check the IP range so we can know for certain where this user is. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Editors with TAIV privileges can see the IP address associated with temporary accounts (while they are active). The IP addresses in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hdayejr last edited Wikipedia over a decade ago so their present geolocation is not a reliable indicator of where the editor behind them was located at the time (which may of course be different to their present physical location). The temporary account in that category has a different underlying IP to the one who posted here. The two IP addresses geolocate to different regions of the same country. It is worth noting for others though that the TA, which is not bloocked but was tagged as a suspected sock by ChrisP2K5, is the only (temporary) account or IP address in the confirmed or suspected socks of Hdayejr cateogries to have edited more recently than 2008 (Hdayejr's last edit was an appeal of their block in early 2009).
There are three other temporary accounts associated with the TA who started this thread, none of them are blocked. At least three of them have contributions that overlap enough for me to be comfortable saying they are the same editor as each other. The fourth has only a single contribution, to an article not edited by any of the other three, which is insufficient to say anything about whether or not they are the same person.
Regardless of whether or not this is Hdayejr (and knowing him like I know him, as I know him off of Wikipedia as well, I still suspect it is), I must say that it is very concerning to me that this IP user has seemed to target me. I’d also like to bring up, again, that these edits have been made under several different IP addresses, and each time I raised the concern that this anonymous IP user is apparently offended by, the edits magically shifted to a different IP with the same patterns. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I guarantee you, I am nothing like Hdayejr. He made his edits for all the wrong reasons, whereas I make sure articles are kept simplified. What you think is "unreadable" clearly is not. ~2026-17508-59 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
No, that’s not what you’re doing. My edits are intended to streamline the information and make it more understandable and readable. Your arbitrary reverts aren’t doing anything but being disruptive, which is exactly the kind of thing Hdayejr is known for. Not to mention your apparent obsession with me, which he is also known for, your jumping from IP to IP after I raised my concerns that you might be him, and your apparent obsession with driving me off of this website because you don’t like my methods. I’ve done nothing wrong here, despite what you may believe, and quite frankly I am offended that you don’t seem to be inclined to acknowledge your responsibility in this entire exercise. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
They were already readable and understandable to begin with. And Hdayejr never made reasonable edit summaries like I did (and why would he?), which you choose to ignore and undo without any edit summaries of your own explaining why you did it (reasonable or not). I was not after you. I was keeping the articles simplified and removing excessive and unnecessary (and sometimes unfounded) information. It was only a coincidence you just happen to be editing those articles. ~2026-17508-59 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, I don’t believe you. Plain and simple. It’s a pattern of behavior that is eerily similar to his. And I seem to be your only target. That isn’t fair and I can’t say that I don’t find this very disturbing. If it’s just a coincidence, then it’s a hell of a coincidence because I will say again the pattern of behavior is almost exactly the same as his. The passage of time doesn’t matter; he has always exhibited these types of behaviors on various social media sites.
Your edit summaries may have appeared reasonable to you but your behavior tells me that you were only doing this to target me, outside of that lone edit on the Shop Til You Drop page. Your edits and reverts were not done in good faith, judging by your responses here and your initial filing. If I am in violation of any Wiki policy, it is certainly not remotely worth of a permanent suspension of my editing privileges as you seem to want it to be. I shouldn’t have to, for lack of a better term, look over my shoulder every single time I make an edit on a page because I have someone with an axe to grind against me. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Can I make a request for closure here? It’s been two days since Blue-Sonnet asked the question and we’ve had no response, and I don’t really think extending this beyond then is going to solve anything. All I would ask is for the edits I made to be restored and left alone, for whoever this person is to stop targeting me and to leave me alone. If that’s a lot to ask I will apologize, but regardless, I think the point has been somewhat belabored at this juncture. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough. But would you all agree that this ought to be closed? The IP hasn’t responded to Blue-Sonnet's allegation since it was made, it’s been four days, and I don’t think we’re going to hear anything from them anytime soon. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
An admin will get to it in due course - someone will go through this board periodically and close threads as they go. Worst case scenario is that this will get archived if no-one touches it for the next week, so it's fine either way. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Please unblock me...I have not done anything...not vandalised a page and yet I am not allowed to edit enhance a page....Please help
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RD1 tag cleanup
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
