Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive376

Enforcing an edit via constant reverts

Bejakyo has made an edit to Wales Green Party and is enforcing that edit via reverting any removal of it, despite the edit being disputed. Attempts to resolve this on the issue on the article's talk page appear unconstructive, with the editor refusing to engage with WP:BRD. Helper201 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

user:helper201 is misrepresenting what is happening. It is not a contributation I added as you can see here [1] and the aspect was not touched for six months unti [2] which only updated the holder of the role. I would appricate you self-strike such a comment claiming I added something I did not Bejakyo (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

the first removal/readdition was this removal, by Helper201 Bejakyo (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo: re. this edit summary, unfortunately, WP:ONUS says no such thing. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Unblock process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I would like to appeal my block.

I have taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and its policies. I have reviewed Wikipedia's editing rules thoroughly and will ensure to follow them. I commit that I will not publish my own personal opinions as facts, cite necessary sources, and respond promptly when I become aware of new messages on my talk page. I apologise for not responding on the ANI page; I did not see the message to do so until too late. Thank you. CarterSchmelz61 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You had an appeal denied by @Yamla: a week ago; in it he told you

Spend time making WP:EDITREQ on article talk pages. Once you have several hundred of these across at least six months, feel free to contest your block. Your edits will be reviewed to see if the problem is resolved. Had you addressed the concerns when asked, there might have been no need for the block.

You should follow this advice. CoconutOctopus talk 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MS NOW

• MS NOW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would welcome some help in cleaning up the RM banner from MS NOW, the new title for the former MSNBC. In protecting the article during a cut-and-paste and move war, I inadvertently provoked a formal move discussion, which I have closed early as a clear WP:SNOW, and went ahead and moved However, the banner persists, and there are catgegories to move and a great deal of link-checking, which must be done carefully to ensure that no anachronisms are introduced. Since I rarely close formal move discussions, my skills are probably not what they should be for something this complex. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the bot took care of the banner, but the careful category and link clean-up is needed. Given the newness of the rebranding, I don't think there's any harm in a deliberate, careful clean-up that takes into account dates and times of tenure and events. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Note: Please note that any cleanup work on this matter should be paused until the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 November § MS NOW has concluded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Appeal from BlackJack

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 have posted an unblock appeal at my talk page. As requested by Asilvering, I've prepared this summary version for presentation to the community at WP:AN.

I fully accept that I was wrong to breach WP:SPI, and I decided six months ago that I want to edit as BlackJack only. I've admitted several old accounts for blocking, and I'm 99% sure there are no others. I've also moved across to Simple where I've made over 6,300 contributions, mostly to [salvage and rebuild the cricket coverage there. In addition, as Simple is plagued by bad edits, I've joined the cleanup efforts. These have included vandal-fighting and, last month, I was granted rollback.

Meanwhile, I have created only one new account, BeachBoyJack (BBJ), which is completely legit as explained in the appeal, and on the relevant user pages. I've been given CU clearance for the last six months.

The essence of my appeal is WP:ROPE. I have guaranteed that I will edit only as BlackJack (or as BBJ on a shared server). If I should breach my promise after being reinstated, I know I would be globally banned, and rightly so. That would mean losing access to Simple as well as enwiki. So, the rope is only for lassooing vandals.

I've explained in the appeal what I can bring to enwiki. This has been recognised by several editors who have very kindly posted these comments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Asilvering is proposing a conditional unblock, and I accept any conditions required. This has been discussed at the appeal. Please note that Asilvering pointed out the priority of GNG ahead of all sport SNGs. As I replied there, I now agree with that approach, because I think microstubs with minimal sourcing should be redirected to suitable lists. I've tried to do that at Simple, where the same issue exists on a lesser scale.

I'm happy to answer any questions raised. I'll ping from my talk page. Please bear in mind that I have admitted guilt for wilful breaches of SPI, although I never indulged in multiple voting. Note also that I have made real progress over the last six months, and that I wish to continue making progress at both Simple and enwiki. As I said above, the essence of this appeal is WP:ROPE.

Thank you. Jack (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC). (Copied by Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC))

I encourage everyone to view BlackJack's Talk page before deciding, as there are some Simple editors who've come across specifically to support their appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support - This is basically the situation that WP:OFFER is for, and this editor has done just about as much as anyone can do while blocked on English Wikipedia to demonstrate they'll be an asset to English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This is an intelligent, self-reflective and unself-exculpatory appeal. Much water has passed under the bridge, and their work at Simple demonstrates how productive they can be. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support because I've just realised that I haven't done this yet, see Talk for reasoning. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Good work at Simple, good appeal, endorsed by folks I respect both projects. BlackJack, I hope you have learned that you can get a lot more done on this project using only one account than you can with many. Toadspike [Talk] 16:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support, the appeal is clear and BlackJack has done the work to show they've learned from the sanctions rather than simply asserting they have. Almost a perfect SO situation. I think the single account to which they've already agreed is sufficient condition wise, but am fine with whatever community consensus is. Star Mississippi 18:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support, with the restriction against creating additional accounts as posited by Asilvering. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. They have been putting in solid work at Simple English Wikipedia, and seem to have already accepted the account restriction. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change to the CheckUser team, November 2025

The Arbitration Committee acknowledges the resignation of Spicy (talk · contribs) from the CheckUser team and thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, November 2025

New community-designated contentious topic

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.

---

Per consensus at VPR, we have a new community-designated contentious topic for weather events, broadly construed. Administrators are authorized to use the standard set of contentious topic restrictions in this topic area; restrictions should be logged at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Weather events. (Please let me know if any part of the setup is incomplete.) Toadspike [Talk] 16:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Weather events? At this rate the whole site will be comprised of contentious topics. (Not necessarily a bad thing, given its use in confronting disruption.) — Czello ^(music) 16:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a link to the discussion? I hardly see how a tornado could cause an edit war. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion was closed here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The link is at the top of the CTOP page. As for the other question: Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado comes to mind. Toadspike [Talk] 18:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I hardly see how a tornado could cause an edit war. Oh you sweet summer child... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Surely they wouldn't come to blows over Capital letters? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Some things have gone down in this topic area... Z E T A^C 19:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a few factors that make weather events a perennially thorny topic (they're often international in scope with varying naming and classification conventions, and there are open-ended methodological questions about how to tabulate damages and casualties), but at the end of the day the most significant factor may simply be that they are a breaking news event with often traumatic implications for the affected areas, and this draws in both swathes of new editors and diligent regulars who are trying to make changes quickly, either of which may be inclined to feel a misplaced sense of ownership over the topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike: I think this needs to be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger and @HurricaneZeta, thanks for pointing this out. I have now added it to the list. Toadspike [Talk] 19:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see where this general topic would stir up stormy debates. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I hate to edit when feeling under the weather. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please, someone, put this thread out of its misery before we get any more awful puns. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saratherohan Linkspamming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just stumbled across Saratherohan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s activity when some of it showed up in my watchlist. This user's activity seems to be almost if not entirely (relatively sophisticated) linkspam for a variety of businesses. Per their talk page, they've been called out for this previously. This seems like it may warrant administrative action, but wasn't 100% clear enough to me to take straight to AIV, so I'd be interested in others' opinions. Apologies if this is the wrong venue.

Sample diffs:

• Wood carving
• Rectification
• Wellness tourism

Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think ANI is better? GarethBaloney (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Also looks a little bit like they asked ChatGPT for a short descriptive paragraph, but there's not enough text to be sure... Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For example, persistent promotion of levantiques.com:

February 2025:Saudi Vision 2030: three paragraphs to lead up to linking levantiques.com, with the edit summary We have added content regarding Saudi Arabia focus on Hotel sector under its Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 to reduce dependency on oil based economy[3] - immediately undone as promotional

April 2025, Majlis[4] - survived until today

November 2025, Wood carving[5] - reverted today. NebY (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. The account has done nothing at all other than citation spam for at least the last four years, and they have already been amply warned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential LTA problem

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 user was just created [6] with the name As if I never evade my blocks. When this user registered, it did not start editing. This is clearly a sleeper account... Spiderspike (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motions regarding Lightbreather

The Arbitration Commitee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (Lightbreather: Gun control topic-ban) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Remedy 3 (Lightbreather: Restricted to one account) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

Remedy 5 (Lightbreather: Reverse topic ban) of Lightbreather is rescinded.

The interaction bans assumed by the Arbitration Committee in Remedy 6A (Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)) of Lightbreather are rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 18:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Lightbreather

ltbdl, unban 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.

---

ltbdl is appealing their block under the standard offer. However, they are WP:3X-banned, so their unblock review requires community consensus. Yamla has determined that there is no obvious evidence of recent sockpuppetry. The text of their appeal is below.

in june 2024, i was topic banned from post-1992 american politics and gender-related disputes for some very stupid comments that i regret.

i made edits in direct contravention of my topic bans (for example, [7], [8], [9]), knowing full well that i could be blocked for this. when i was blocked for this, i did not wait 6 months and appeal. instead, i was impatient, and over a period of more than a year i made sockpuppets, user:clubette and user:a ton of bricks, without disclosing they were my own accounts, and used those accounts to violate my topic bans as well. these were foolish things to do, and i apologize for them.

going forward, i pledge to stay within the bounds of my topic bans, and to never use alternate accounts without disclosing they are mine. thank you for your consideration of this unblock request. ltbdl (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as a last chance, on the condition of a one-account restriction (which they appear to be okay with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I am undecided because of the severity of the recent misconduct and the lack of a convincing explanation about what has changed with this editor. After racking up two topic bans and an indefinite block for repeated and knowing topic ban violations, this person created two sock accounts that together made over 900 edits. This was a prolonged pattern of disruptive and deceptive behavior, and this person must have been aware every time they clicked the "Publish changes" button that they were violating policy. I want to know why we should believe that this person has changed from a deceiver to an honest person in just a few months. I am unconvinced by their very brief statement. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, you are of course welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but someone who has managed to take the standard offer has already shown that they have changed from the sort of person who impatiently creates multiple sockpuppets to evade topic bans. That's precisely what WP:SO is about. -- asilvering (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering, as WP:SO says, This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you, especially if you have not provided any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked. All I am asking for is a persuasive reason, not boilerplate that I find unconvincing. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support unban. Based on their response to my question on their talk page, I am hopeful that ltbdl has become a different, more collaborative, more patient person. They have a track record of contributing on other projects without issue. I think this is sufficient for an unban. ltbdl, please for everyone's sake stay far, far away from the topics you are banned from. Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Conditional Support with retention of both topic bans and a low tolerance for breaches given both the socking and a history of forgetfulness. The standard offer concept has to have some meaning (hence the overall support) but there needs to be strong evidence of collaborative editing before a return to contentious topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ltbdl's descent into disruptive editing and sockpuppetry was abrupt and inexplicable, and her desire to return to constructive editing appears equally so. One way of looking at that is that whatever quirk of decisionmaking made her think all of this was a good idea has come and gone, and she can go back to being a constructive editor. On the other hand, the lack of a compelling explanation for her actions gives no reason to trust that she won't have a second departure of this sort. I don't see a need to set a dreadfully high bar for an unban where the user is actively improving other projects and hasn't done something truly heinous, but there is still some bar to meet, and the current unban request lacks any substance to speak of. Oppose for now pending a better explanation of what led to this monthslong pattern of misconduct. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Another way of putting this, on reflection, is that ltbdl's overall demeanor throughout all of this has been that she doesn't take any of it very seriously, and I don't see that as having changed in what she's said so far. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I had similar concerns, which prompted me to ask the question that got this response. I understand if that's not enough for everyone, but it's enough for me. Either way, I hope that this discussion will be a bit of a wake-up call for ltbdl, who cannot simply continue as before. Toadspike [Talk] 14:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the world here. Even a cursory explanation of what was going through her head when she violated her TBAN, when she socked, when she misused her talkpage after being blocked, when she made this weird comment after being warned for that, etc., would probably get me at least to neutral here, if not to support. We see unban requests where people talk about going through a tough time in life, misunderstanding social norms, not taking things seriously enough. Hell, I was the most enthusiastic advocate for an unban request for a user who openly admitted that his banworthy conduct had been because he was deliberately trolling the community and violating our trust. (He remains in good standing 2 years later!) But trust is what it comes down to. A big part of the reason we ask for six months without socking is that that time commitment is an indication that the user takes Wikipedia seriously, which buys them some trust. I'm not convinced that ltbdl takes Wikipedia seriously. Her conduct before her block suggested the opposite. Her conduct for months after it further suggested that. I could be convinced that something's changed, but what she's said so far doesn't establish that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

My own tolerance for unblocks in this kind of case is "how far do I think this editor can get before being reblocked, if they go right back to the same behaviour?" I think "being a dumbass in AMPOL/GENSEX while tbanned" is pretty low-risk in this regard, so I personally tend towards "eh, sure, whatever" over "yeah? prove it". -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support I'm willing to give them one last chance to make things right, although I definitely support putting them under a one-account restriction. I have similar views on the subject to asilvering. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin. I don't think socking is an unforgivable evil, but in general this user seems to not really give a hoot about the stuff that led to the problems in the first place, and seems to see policies/norms/etc as annoying formalities to be worked around (e.g. the unban itself being written in an extremely irregular all-lowercase format that virtually all editors take effort to avoid). jp×g🗯️ 07:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  All of their talk page messages have been in all-lowercase. Not following the "norm" of using capital letters in conversation is not a good reason to keep someone blocked. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  agreed (totally not biased...). the substance of her misconduct and appeal is not altered by whether or not she uses capital letters. however, i am inclined to agree that she doesn't seem to care all that much about any of this. tamzin makes a good point that there is no indication of what made ltbdl start being disruptive, nor any indication of what made her stop. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 14:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per ROPE and Toadspike, while AGF tells me they have a broken Caps Lock. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban. They seem to fully grasp what they did wrong, what topics they must not engage on, and are ready to be productive. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support unban - Per WP:ROPE. There's no major risk associated with unblocking someone and giving them a second chance. If anything, undoing any damage is easy and the block button is only a few clicks away. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect from protected page

Template:Il ("Indigo Lima") is salted; please will someone make it a redirect to Template:Interwiki link, which I have just created? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Just have to ask first: is your {{Interwiki link}} functionally different from the existing {{Interlanguage link}}? I know it produces different output, but is the purpose the same? And could you have a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022 November 16#Template:Il and comment on if you expect any similar difficulty arising from the redirect? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Very different; and no—the new template will throw a prominent error message if used in main space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

To avoid confusion between both, could it be useful to have the shortcut be {{iwkl}} instead? (to differentiate it from both Template:Interwiki link and Template:Invisible Wikidata link, the latter of which already uses {{iwl}}). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 (Johnpacklambert topic banned) of Conduct in deletion-related editing is amended as follows:

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed, except for categories for discussion; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes his March 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Should Johnpacklambert fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area, any uninvolved administrator may remove the categories for discussion exception (therefore reinstating the topic ban for all deletion discussions) as an arbitration enforcement action. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After twelve months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, this provision allowing for reinstatement by an uninvolved administrator will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

User talk:My Little Pony Friendship Magic Roto

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.

---

Can someone revoke talk page access for this user? Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. CoconutOctopus talk 11:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

( peanut gallery comment) BTW, this is an LTA. It's best to send them straight to m:SRG for locking. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to allow the use of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE) for community-imposed general sanctions, if the community also assigns those requests to AE. Comments on the motion are welcome at the amendment request.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

Help with interpreting discussion resolved by admin on contentious topic page

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 was recently a discussion that was closed by a moderator on the Gaza Genocide talk page here:Talk:Gaza_genocide#"Consensus_there_is_genocide"_in_lead. Editors, including myself, are not entirely clear how to move forward and what the result means for the article, so at the suggestion of another editor I'm asking for some help with how to proceed. The relevant follow-up discussions between editors including myself is here: Talk:Gaza_genocide#Result of the previous RfC Originalcola (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator Elections - Call for Candidates

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/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• 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.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Hordaland

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.

---

• Hordaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hordaland is a deceased editor. The home page is locked. On the page is a URL hijacked by spammers. It should be modified to make safe. The old link is readabilityofwikipedia dot com and the new link is readability.nl -- per project Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#readabilityofwikipedia.com - thanks. -- GreenC 17:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temporary accounts: block treatment

With the advent of the new Temporary accounts, are we ok with treating them as an individual user when blocking? The point is, with a previous IP Address we couldn't block indefinitely as it could be multiple different users posting under that IP, so blocks were always limited in length of time. Are we confident this is an individual user,? Can we issue Indef blocks on them, if warranted? Clarification would be helpful. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If I've correctly understood (always a big 'if') these TA's, they're disposable, ie. issued once-only. They also expire after 90 days, so indef in practice means temporary anyway. And since that same TA isn't reissued to anyone else, there wouldn't seem to be any risk of collateral damage to innocent users? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alexf @DoubleGrazing Yes, you can indef block TAs just as you would block regular accounts. Though the account will expire within 90 days, the difference between a temporary block and an indef block can be important for issues like later block evasion. Toadspike [Talk] 11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for the info. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• On a related note, I'm finding I'm having to block multiple times for one person now: The temporary account(s), and the underlying IPs which sometimes create multiple TAs. One IP can easily create a half dozen TAs by clearing cache, meaning it would take 7 blocks to do what used to be able to be done with one block. This also means I now have to check the underlying IP for every TA that needs a block. This has actually increased the workload for admins; sometimes minor, sometimes in a larger way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Preach! It really puts the 'TA' in PITA. Also, there's a much greater chance of inadvertendly linking TAs to IPs as you toggle between the two when making blocks. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown You generally only have to block the most recent TA and the IP. @Ponyo No need to worry about that – the Foundation has given us permission to make back-to-back TA and IP blocks, even if this would implicitly reveal the IP of a TA. Toadspike [Talk] 06:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, you are going to find some IPs that actually have several TAs associated with them, and they are the same person. Easiest way is in a history of like minded edit warring reverts with an IP that clears their cache each session. Not sure if there is a way to find the reverse, which TAs are associated with a given IP< I assume that is a CU only tool. Trust me, if you patrol pages long enough, you will see what I'm talking about. I'm more inclined to just ignore the TAs and strike the IP undernearth, except then no one knows the TA was technically blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

And to think, all they had to do was make account registration mandatory for editing... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

My point is that once the cache is cleared, the older TAs can no longer be used, so there's no point in blocking them. Generally... And yes, simply blocking the IP is more efficient, but doesn't leave much of a paper trail. The benefit of back-to-back blocks is that we can reconstruct the IP info of a TA once it expires (after 90 days). Toadspike [Talk] 08:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting that it isn't against policy to note down IP information and share it with other people who have TAIV access. One can even create a TAIVwiki or a similar database. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: You can see all TA edits from an IP at Special:IPContributions. When you click on the IP that's revealed next to a TA, this should be what shows up. This even works on ranges, up to the rangeblock limit (/16 for IPv4, /19 for IPv6). I'd also recommend turning on auto-reveal if you haven't already. Saves a lot of clicks and the WMF has not set any particular standard admins need to meet to do that. (Once you have auto-reveal on, the IPs you reveal don't even get logged anymore.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin knows what they're talking about of course, but I feel I can add a nerdy clarification (as checkusers have access to this new log). Revealing IPs doesn't get logged while auto‑reveal is enabled, however, Special:IPContributions does still do some logging. That is, "viewed temporary accounts on [IP/range]" continues to be logged, whereas "viewed IP addresses for [TA]" is not logged. I don't know if that's a bug or feature, and don't really concern myself about it - it's one of the most uninteresting logs I've seen. But now you know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll out-nerd you with the quirk that setting auto-reveal applies globally (if you have a perm that grants global TAIV) but is logged only on the wiki where you do it. So when my current 90-day allowance expires, I could go reënable auto-reveal on, say, the Piedmontese Wikisource, and the only people able to see that would be stewards happening to check that wiki's log. You'd then see me in the enwiki log appearing to access TAs-from-IP but not IPs-from-TA, despite it appearing that my auto-reveal had expired. Apparently this is not a bug since the information is still logged somewhere, even if it's somewhere no one would ever look, and the only people this is ever expected to be of interest to are government regulators enforcing privacy laws, not CUs or stewards or OmbComm. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The harder thing to avoid, which I've almost done once or twice, and which Ponyo might be referring to, is putting a behavior-specific rationale like "vandalism on Example" in the block form for the IP, when that can only go with the TA. Someone really worried about this could probably do some CSS styling to have a different color on TA contribs versus IP. Worst-case scenario, though, an inadvertent disclosure is easily remedied via log deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There is definitely going to be accidental disclosure, it is unavoidable. We are compelled to justify each block, and it's better to do so in the log than trying to simple remember every block. It's part of WP:accountability, so we will see how this pans out. Thanks for the tip above, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie part 6

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Newsjunkie part 6

•  Requesting immediate archiving... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Chungli Ao language phonology charts (dispute resolution)

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.

---

• Chungli Ao language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oklopfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users continually strongly insist that we legitimately base the phonological charts of this article off of a source that is a bit dated and also poorly written when it came to the articulation of the palatal consonants, and also a had listed a supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" that is clearly non-existent according to the newer sources. They keep insisting we literally base the chart off of the old source's word-for-word description of the palatal consonant sounds (which they insist is a pure-palatal stop /cç/, /si/ allophone being a pure-palatal fricative [ç]). When meanwhile, newer sources (like Temsunungsang, 2021; Bruhn, 2010) list the sounds as palato-alveolar /tʃ/, [ʃ], and the supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" actually being an alveolar approximant /ɹ/. But yet any newer source I point too, they immediately criticize and delegitimize, just because the sources are not written like they would be as a phonological-description, like the main source they keep pointing to (Gowda 1972). Sure it would be much better if the newer sources were a phonological-description, but the more I imply that we should "work with what we have at the moment", the more they get pedantic and resistant and continue to promote the transcriptions of the older and poorly-written source. I have listened to several different speakers of the language, and based off of the audio, their pronunciation exactly matches what the newer sources state, rather than what the older sources state. Any assistance from an admin here would be quite helpful to solve this conundrum. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

As I said on the AN/I that you opened up:

Temsunungsang (2021) calls it a palatal affricate, not palato-alveolar. The top of International Phonetic Alphabet#Description explains why you're incorrect about symbol usage. Please stop misrepresenting sources. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You do not need to take every word verbatim. Sometimes linguists use the term “palatal” to either shorten the term “palato-alveolar”, or when broadly speaking since it is still considered to be partially palatal. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

In his 2025 paper he refers to the Changki affricate as palato-alveolar, so I can only assume he knew what he was talking about. Reinterpreting is WP:OR ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Says you. Based on opinion. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Which is exactly why Temsunungsang has been reached out to for clarification. Trying to force this through an administrative process is only time wasting for everyone. Learn some patience, please. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Why don’t you learn some patience and be open to other sources of info, that users would want to temporarily use during the waiting process that are still fairly accurate. Besides your own, which may not be consistent with newer sources. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Because you are reinterpreting those sources, which is antithetical to building an encyclopedia. If the paper does not say palato-alveolar, you cannot either. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reinterpreting, as long as it is feasible. And in this case it is. You just can’t help yourself because you are way too rigid and stubborn. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you continuing to show your incivility and inability to drop the stick. It is going to make anyone else reviewing this have a much easier time. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Like anybody's winning here? Fdom5997 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Admins can't weigh in on content disputes on admin noticeboards (that's not what they're for), plus this really looks like forum shopping. I've already gone into the appropriate options for resolution here and none of those involved AN.

I'm worried that you're destined for a boomerang. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like forum shopping given they now have two posts up on two different administrator noticeboards. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought you said that it did not belong in ANI. So I moved it here. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You were also told where you could go for content disputes, which was not AN and which you still haven't tried to engage with TwoNineNineOne (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on this comment here, Fdom is well aware of where he should go. TwoNineNineOne (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I double checked my post just in case I wasn't clear, but I really think I was.

I definitely said you should be exploring either dispute resolution or third opinion processes - I also included links to both so you could easily find out more about them, decide on an option then get the ball rolling.

The reason it doesn't belong at ANI is because those other processes exist and haven't been tried yet.

If an editor refuses to engage with dispute resolution for example, that would be a different matter and could be considered a behavioural problem - admins deal with these behavioural problems, not content disputes.

They're volunteers too and have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise they'd never be able to get anything done!

Wikipedia content is decided by editor debate and consensus, that's normal and happens every day. People disagree on content so we have processes to sort that out without needing to bother admins.

Admins deal with editors who can't/won't engage with this set process. That's not normal and needs intervention.

Does that make more sense? Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic bans proposed on COIN

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 discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN) has reached a consensus that topic bans should be imposed. How should this be progressed further? The guidance on the COIN does not explain how to proceed once consensus that a COI exists has been achieved. cagliost (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Per WP:CBAN, Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Put it another way: not at WP:COIN. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. cagliost (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog of SPI cases

A significant backlog of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations exists, with some cases pending for 2-3 months. Various cases require action, including closing CU-completed cases, archiving closed cases, assigning clerk assistant to pending cases, and reviewing open and CU-hold cases by experienced admins. ~2025-36942-19 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm here to have a bot temporarily disabled on the Hurry Up Tomorrow cover image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• File:The Weeknd - Hurry Up Tomorrow.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If a bot is enabled, I can't upload an album cover that doesn't contain the Parental Advisory label. So can you please do exactly what I think you're gonna do? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a bot owner, and you were pretty vague in explaining the issue, but have you tried WP:FFU? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Your request is unable to be parsed. What bot? Why can't you upload? Why does the label not need to be on the cover? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Most album covers in the pages don't have the Parental Advisory warning label. For example, We Don't Trust You. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That happens, but that doesn't mean it's a standard to exclude it. And that still doesn't answer what bot are you requesting be disabled? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following: enforcement requests and appeals from enforcement actions arising from community-imposed general sanctions (including community-designated contentious topics), if the community has assigned those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 19:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding amendment to arbitration procedures: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope

Appeal from topic ban

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 everyone. I'd like to request a review of my ban on Armenia/Azerbaijan topic (discussion).

Since the ban was placed, I have followed it completely. I focused on other parts of Wikimedia and stayed active on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. My editing there has been stable and productive, and I did not touch the banned topic on English Wikipedia. I understand why the ban was given. Even if I did not agree with every part of the original concerns, I can see why the situation looked suspicious at that time. During these months, I have been careful not to repeat anything that could create the same problems again.

I'm asking for the topic ban to be lifted so that I can work in this area again, especially on historical and cultural subjects where I can contribute high-quality and well-sourced content. I'm not interested in getting involved in unproductive disputes or the kinds of arguments that made this topic contentious in the first place. If a discussion starts heading in that direction, I will step away rather than escalate it. Nemoralis (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

support (full disclosure, i have previously talked to Nemoralis off-wiki about Armenia-Azerbaijan politics, although it's been awhile): Nemoralis is a valuable contributor in one of the most intractably miserable topic areas on enwiki. due to the obscurity of the issue among Anglophones, having editors who can read/write in Armenian or Azeri and don't seek to push nationalist POVs is extremely useful. it's been almost a year since the topic ban was imposed, and i do not see it being necessary to prevent disruption. i would also point to Nemoralis' work on azwiki, where he has done important work on neutrality and better coverage of Armenian issues, such as creating an azwiki article about Armenian genocide denial. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• support. Nemoralis has complied with their topic ban and edited constructively for a significant period of time. Given that and their statement that they understand why the topic ban was implemented and their assurance that they will step away if it gets too heated rather than escalate I am happy to support the removal of the topic ban.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support Has a clear statement of how they will contribute positively in the contentious topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Nemoralis was part of a meatpuppet group that did proxy editing for its blocked members, as confirmed by a block review confirming plenty of CU and technical evidence that this group edited much of the same articles in the same topic areas. Nemoralis's appeal does not acknowledge previous meatpuppet and proxy editing. This also means, by not fully admitting to the previous behaviour, it does not explain how Nemoralis will not continue to proxy edit in this same topic if unbanned. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Comment TBF That was two years ago and the block was one year ago - do you think they're playing an incredibly long game?

  I'd have expected a bad actor to have given up long before this, but then again I've got my AGF glasses on & maybe that's something that does actually happen...

  There's also quite a complex explanation in their accepted unblock request about what happened and why, does that not address your concerns? Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Something that doesn't sit right with me is that one of the users (Solavirum, now known as ChanisCaucasi) that Nemoralis was proxy editing for has implied that Aliyev's authoritarian regime is keeping an eye on Azerbaijani Wikipedians and even repressing them in a Meta thread related to Nemoralis' block [10]. I recall there being another time when they talked about this here, think it was in a AN/ANI thread, can't find it anymore. There was even a post in Wiki news about the Aliyev regime reaching for Wikipedia [11]. A regime that is notable for being authoritarian, suppressing freedom of press, and engaging in historical falsifications. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  i admit i'm confused as to why Solavirum's comment about the Azerbaijani government is problematic for Nemoralis' topic ban appeal. i see nothing objectionable in that Meta thread from Solavirum, it's just honest about the risks that Azerbaijani editors face. certainly concerning in a general sense, but is there something i'm missing? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Never mind, I don't know how to write this without sounding like an arse, and probably should have thought more about it initially. My bad. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  no worries! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Firstly, I have not proxy edited for anyone and I will not do so. As I mentioned before, I didn't realize that my behavior at that time could be misunderstood. Also, the thread on MetaWiki has nothing to do with me. I don't understand what they have to do with this at all. Nemoralis (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Uh... you literally did proxy edit as the block review showed abundant evidence of. How can you say that you understand why the ban was given while also denying proxy editing? It is hard to believe you will not repeat the same problems if you cannot even admit what they are. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support removing this topic ban. Nemoralis should be judged on his own merits, and as far as I can see his contributions here and elsewhere have been solid. Toadspike [Talk] 07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Cautious support - it's been a while since that block review linked above, and HistoryofIran has sort of backed off their initial comments. Nemoralis seems to understand what the issues were that led to the topic ban and has undertaken to stay away from them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do I get sanctions lifted?

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 years ago restrictions were imposed on me regarding new article creations and Articles for Deletion discussion participation. How do I go about requesting they be lifted? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy weighing in here not as an admin but as a fellow editor who enjoys working alongside you on the underrepresented pieces of English wikipedia.

I think a successful request would include how you've improved your research and writing, and other ways you've addressed the concerns that were raised that led to the sanctions. It will probably be helpful too to include the link(s) that led to the sanctions so that uninvolved editors or those of us who have forgotten can review. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger thanks for the link. I have read through the linked section and the section it links to "above" and I have absolutely no idea what it is you'd like me to do to request my restriction be lifted. Can you please clarify for me? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @FloridaArmy, it's just the paragraph immediately above it, one line up.

WP:GAB is for blocks but still has good advice on how to compose your appeal. You can also see the same instructions about halfway down the page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been several years since the imposition of restrictions on me for making a lot of good faith additions of new entries on notable subjects and participation at Articles for Deletion. I've been working up new subjects in draftspace and will continue to do so before introducing them into mainspace. I understand that the community evolved to expect substantial content and sourcing for new subjects and that very short starts of subjects in mainspace, even if the subject is notable, are no longer allowed. I understand new article subjects with very limited content aren't considered acceptable. I will limit my comments at Articles for Deletion to avoid extended back and forths and simply lay out the sources and reasoning why a subject meets inclusion criteria or the lack thereof that makes the subject fall short in my opinion. Thanks for your kind consideration. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Links for convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#FloridaArmy_and_AfC_woes FA limited to 20 drafts at AfC, June 2020. FA, was there another that addressed AfD? Star Mississippi 03:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984 § CIR problems? for the thread that led to the AfD restriction. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Taking a (very!) quick look through user Talk - over the past two weeks we have two accepted AFC drafts, seven rejects and two speedy delete nominations (only nominated, not actioned). The most common reason for AFC rejection is sourcing/notability. I've not counted the notifications for old articles because that's most of the Talk page.

  If anyone wants the pure figures then here's a link: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/FloridaArmy. There are no deleted pages until item #87 and a deletion rate of 0.8% overall. Roughly 3 out of 5 are Stub-class, around 1.5 out of 5 are Start-class.

  Honestly, this might be useless info but I found it interesting & figured I may as well write it down on the off-chance that is actually helpful for someone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Blue-Sonnet I don't think those speedies were correctly tagged (misclick, not deliberate human action). From the history with edits to reset G13, I don't think they were true G2s and nothing in article or @FloridaArmy's editing history indicates any tests. I'll drop a note on @Liz's talk since I mentioned her here, but 99% sure those two shouldn't be held against FA. Love the data you pulled. Star Mississippi 13:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! They didn't look right to me so I thought I'd better add that little disclaimer.

  Here are the last ten reviewed articles, these should make it a bit easier for everyone to assess the appeal (accepted articles are in italics):

  • Draft:Samuel W. Chubbuck - single sentence article, moved to draft by another editor after being created in mainspace
  • Draft:Melvin Redmond - declined for notability (sigcov)
  • Draft:Julian La Mothe - one paragraph with filmography list. Declined due to lack of context.
  • Henry Carey Baird - accepted
  • Draft:Patricia Li - declined for notability (sigcov)
  • Draft:I. N. Moore - declined for notability (sigcov), unfinished (too short/written like a list)
  • Draft:Robert J. Guidry - declined twice for notability (sigcov)
  • Draft:E. O. Rothra - declined twice for notability (sigcov), also see CMD's analysis
  • Draft:Open University of Sudan - declined due to LLM signs (no specifics given but there are some phrases that AI likes to use in there)
  • Al-Mazmum - accepted

  Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Just wanted to note that the Open University of Sudan draft wasn't created or heavily edited by FloridaArmy (who only made very small edits to it) before they submitted it. I don't think FloridaArmy used any LLMs in that article. I don't know if they use LLMs or not but I figure from a very quick skim and what I vaguely remember it's way more likely they don't. Sorry if I haven't signed in (this is a temporary account), hoping it'll automatically sign my post. ~2025-35897-41 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yep the LLM part isn't really explained - I included it since the person submitting the article is confirming that they feel the draft meets the criteria for inclusion as a full article, ergo they've checked and verified that it's ready to be included in mainspace. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to miss that the issue was not just about length, but about the amount of cleanup needed on what was there. Looking at Draft:E. O. Rothra, it was submitted to AfC while still having editing notes, and bare urls are still being used (some were caught by citationbot). CMD (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose lifting these restrictions in part due to FloridaArmy's behavior with Luther Palmer House where I have most interacted with them. I brough it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendleton Hill due to lacking notability; it was closed as redirect. After the close, FloridaArmy left a rather odd message on my talkpage. They then moved the redirected article to draftspace and submitted it to AfC almost unchanged from the version that was redirected. Despite the unchanged prose, they submitted it with a new title - that of a (likely notable) house that is scarcely mentioned in the prose. The article, which I believe should have not been accepted at AfC, has basic citation issues including bare URLs, incorrect parameters, and non-RS that I specifically pointed out in the DR.

In the drafts linked above by BlueSonnet, I don't see any indication that FloridaArmy has improved their editing in any way. One of the drafts was created in mainspace in violation of their editing restriction; they already have two blocks for previous violations. Of the two accepted drafts, Henry Carey Baird has numerous incomplete or improperly formatted references, and Al-Mazmum needed significant cleanup by the AfC reviewer. These are issues I would expect to see with newer editors, not someone with 200,000 edits over 9 years who knows that asking for a lifting of restrictions will put scrutiny on their recent edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• If I tagged a draft as a CSD G2, that shouldn't be held against FA. Consider that an oversight on my part. I look at hundreds of expiring drafts on a daily basis and sometimes drafts get mistagged. It's more likely my fault than FAs. I do see a lot of incomplete drafts they've created but G13 deletion is often postponed for several very prolific editors and FA is one of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for review: I denied TAIV access

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a request for review of my denial of FMSky's request for TAIV access. In March-April of this year, @FMSky had two arbitration enforcement sanctions. One, a two-week pblock for personal attacks and disruption, and 2, topic ban from CT/GG. Based on the ongoing topic ban, I denied his request. FMSky felt that was not a sufficient reason for denial. I opened up the discussion for more opinions, and @Femke weighed in with a different, but not definitive, opinion. Femke noted that we're all still figuring it out here, which I thoroughly agree with, and would like to hear opinions from other administrators, either here or at the original request. As I stated in response to FMSky, any admin is welcome to reverse my decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it would be just nice to have to revert genre warriors popping up all over album articles etc, otherwise Binksternet would have to do all the work lmao FMSky (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @rsjaffe. Both the recent pblock and the topic ban are independently disqualifying in my view. Unlike other userrights, this one requires a high degree of trust per the WMF's policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

My thinking is that an editor needs to show enough competence to be able to read the instructions, and no pattern of something that indicates they might ignore the rules like harassment or outing. A topic ban in itself doesn't indicate they would break the rules at vandalism fighting, given that vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions compared to contentious topics. There's some personal attacks involved in the two sanctions, which gives me a bit more pause. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should be leaving it to admin discretion with regard to active sanctions, since admins can reasonably disagree as to what sanctions are or are not disqualifying. I think we have some discretion with regard to expired sanctions. For example, in my view the recent block for personal attacks is disqualifying, but if that had happened three years ago, it probably wouldn't be. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Non-admin commentAs a Wikipedian since 2007, I disagree that "vandalism fighting doesn't evoke strong emotions." I would hope that hitting rollback on the addition of "ksajdhgkoasdh" to a benign article like glass or telephone would not evoke strong emotion in a Wikipedian, but it could evoke stronger emotion if one sees some moron write "Black Politician A is a retarded sodomite who rapes female Muslim Politician B in the butt inside a Jewish synagogue which is across the street from the Holy Mother Mary Catholic Church while screaming Daddy Martin Luther King at the top of her lungs to get bills about abortion passed" on an article, let alone when vandals respond to vandal fighters directly with "your mom" insults, death threats, racist/sexist/Xphobic/otherwise discriminatory garbage, and doxing. Sometimes the vandalism itself is contentious, other times the vandalism may be benign but the subject they're desecrating can be contentious, and it takes thick skin to take some of it with a grain of salt. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The foundation policy for reference [12]. It does not mention 'high degree of trust', and I've treated somewhat similar to pending changes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't say that, but I think that it is since it requires editors to keep certain information confidential. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to grant the TAIV. I see no indication that it's likely to be abused, plus they have a record of AIV reports and so on. I think perhaps some input from the previously involved admins would give an opportunity to raise any concerns that I've missed, but I don't see a topic ban as disqualifying per se. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) If TAIV was used to reveal the IP of an editor based on edits they've made in the CT/GG space, would that be a topic ban violation? It's not technically an edit as described at WP:TBAN. But if it would be a violation then it'd be very hard to check or enforce since only CUs have TAIV log access. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

TBANs are broadly construed, so yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It should mostly be used when dealing with vandalism which is WP:BANEXEMPT so it's not so cut and dry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

BANEXEMPT has exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism or blpvios, reverts can be performed without using TAIV even if deeper investigations cannot. It also specifies that obvious means cases in which no reasonable person could disagree, and I believe that reasonable people can disagree with a topic banned editor accessing non-public account information in the space they are topic banned from.

I think it should be considered a TBAN violation, in which case monitoring and enforcement is an issue worth considering before granting the permission. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that that would be a TBAN violation. Obvious vandalism is obvious in and of itself, without further investigation. So any potential vandalism requiring investigation using TAIV would not be covered by WP:BANEXEMPT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

And to clarify why the investigation touching a banned topic would violate the ban, it is the actions a banned person would take based upon the investigation that would violate the ban. For example, the person may want to delete more, non-obvious, vandalism by a linked account, or the person may want to make a report at AIV pointing out the issue with the IP or with the linked accounts. I can not think of any actions based on investigation of a banned topic using TAIV that would not violate the ban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Throughout the discussion that occurred which established the minimum baseline, a large amount of those participating expressed a desire for the absolute minimum requirements, with some expressing demonstrated need, and some expressing admin discretion to decline. The request ultimately seems to meet both the minimum baseline and a demonstrated need, so the only missing requirement here would be admin discretion. A TBAN in and of itself doesn't necessarily consist of a reason to lack trust in other areas. Hell, we've had administrators with active TBANs, and they still were pretty trustworthy as admins. Also noteworthy is that the topic ban is from early April, with a quick warning a few days later which resolved amicably, but otherwise no further issues noted in the enforcement log. I fail to see how this constitutes a lack of trust. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I imposed the pblock in question and was part of the consensus that led to the TBAN, which I subsequently issued a warning for violating. I don't see anything in that chain of events that precludes FMSky from being granted TAIV, which per Eggroll and contra Voorts is something that the WMF has not indicated is a highly trusted role and the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of. FMSky meets the criteria under WP:TAIVGRANT, and while that section gives admins discretion to deny, I don't see any reason that that discretion should be exercised here. The disruption that led to the pblock, TBAN, and warning is wholly unrelated to the kind of misconduct we're worried about with TAIV; I could see declining if it was within the past month or two on the basis that the editor can't be trusted to follow policy, but we have 7 months of evidence that FMSky can follow his ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

"the community has indicated it wants no heightened gatekeeping of [TAIV]" – I don't think this is an accurate description of the situation. The RfC in question explicitly gave admins discretion in granting and required a "demonstrated need", both of which go beyond the absolute minimum set by the WMF. The close additionally says: There is clear and substantial consensus that admins have the discretion to decline the right even if the requirements are met (emphasis in original). As such, I endorse Rsjaffe declining to grant TAIV in this case. (This does not mean that another admin would have been wrong to grant TAIV when confronted with the same situation.) Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I've restored this from the archive since this probably should be closed by an uninvolved admin, as there is a request for action either in favor of the declination of granting, or in favor of granting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My local ipblockexempt userright is not needed anymore

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 IP range block that affects me was recently made global across all projects, so I now have a global exemption for it. Therefore I no longer need it locally here on en-wp and request it removed. Rose Abrams (T C L) 14:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

GIPBE only exempts you from global IP blocks, not local ones. Are you sure that you don't need it here locally? Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Is that so? I didn't know, thanks for clarifying. Okay, in that case I will keep it until the local block expires in April. Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rose Abrams Your local IP block exemption expires on 22 February 2026. If the local block expires in April, would you like me to extend your IPBE to the end of April? Toadspike [Talk] 15:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be nice, yes🙂 Rose Abrams (T C L) 15:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect from protected page

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 repeat my request: Template:Il ("Indigo Lima") is salted; please will someone make it a redirect to Template:Interwiki link, which I have recently created?

If this isn't the right place to ask; please advise me where to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing A slightly more appropriate venue would be RfPP, which has sections both for edit requests and for requesting unprotection. I'm guessing nobody took action last time because templates are scary. I've now created the redirect, please let me know if I did it correctly. Toadspike [Talk] 12:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks great; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report of user @ChildrenWillListen

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 user @ChildrenWillListen has falsely accused me of writing a Wikipedia page with an LLM. I have tried to discuss this with him via replacing references, but he has tagged the page for speedy deletion twice. I feel this is unacceptable behaviour which is why I am bringing it up. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain where the titles for the references added here came from? CMD (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see User talk:ChildrenWillListen § It appears you have made a mistake. and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molems. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

For ease of reference, they did admit to using an LLM and being Molems: [13]. Perhaps this report can be closed? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've not been following this in detail but, on a quick glance, I am confused. If the SPI concluded that they were the same person then why was no action taken? It seems that we have both sockpuppetry and disruption here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

DE is DE regardless of whether they need to be blocked as a sock. I have INDEFfed RFKTNG and leave the master to our better paid ;-) CU friends. Star Mississippi 15:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: They self-admitted they're a sock, and have said they won't use AI or sock again. I say we give them a chance. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I really hope they do better - their last edit before being blocked was to blank their draft, they've also been giving themselves trouts and barnstars before being found out.

Fingers crossed! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet @ChildrenWillListen I hope so. Molems remains unblocked for their (hopefully) productive use. Star Mississippi 17:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Allowing use of AE for community topicwide restrictions

As required by Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions, I am notifying AN of this new RFC on allowing the use of AE for community topicwide restrictions: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Allowing_use_of_AE_for_community_topicwide_restrictions. You are invited to participate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit or Revert

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.

---

Is this edit considered as a revert ? [14] I moved some content into a new section and deleted 3 sentences.

ie. i created `Public opinion in Israel and abroad` and moved contents from Denial sections there - and deleted denial section headers

The edit is not disputed and still stands on the page.

Original discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cinaroot Cinaroot (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's hard to tell given that that edit is more than a week old; but considering that article's talk page, it seems that WP:DRN would be a better venue for all of this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The talk-page discussion is about whether to include it in the first para of lead, and if so, how it should be presented there. My edit concerns the body of the article. I felt that having a dedicated section was undue, so I created a new section and relocated the content there. Its not disputed rn - im just asking as some editors is saying its a revert. But i disgaree Cinaroot (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is currently an arbitration enforcement request open against the OP concerning this edit and a possible violation of WP:1RR. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft on a user page

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 looks like user @Ivanhardybirt has a draft of an article in their user page. That's the wrong place, correct? I found that user page while I was perusing ANI for fun (really!). (The user was mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205 from late October.) David10244 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would that be wrong? I draft articles in user space all the time. wound theology◈ 11:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:USERPAGEDRAFT suggests that userspace drafts should always be in subpages rather than the main user page, but I don't know that this is really an issue that we need an AN thread about; just ask Ivan to create such a subpage. (@David10244:, as the edit notice to this page says when you start a discussion about a user, pinging them is not enough; you need to notify them on their talkpage) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rudzani Mudau

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.

---

• Rudzani Mudau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's page seems to be some sort of scam, someone might be trying to pass the user page as a legitimate article. Of the 4 contributions outside of user-space, two of them are also spam.

This doesn't fit neatly at AIV or UAA, and I probably could have filed a G11, but I wasn't sure that was it. This user isn't actively vandalizing mainspace, but they seem to be here to run some sort of scam, and not build an encyclopedia. Unless it's all an elaborate joke that I'm not getting. Mlkj (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards "joke" over "scam". Regardless, I've deleted the userpage under U7 and G3 (hoax). Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, U7 doesn't apply (not 6 months old)...the other one still should though. Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the 2nd opinion. Incidentally I think U7 doesn't apply to top-level user-pages anyways, but G3 is a good fit, I'll remember G3 for next time. Mlkj (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's going on with Dschor's sockpuppetry block?

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 noticed that User:Dschor states that @Dschor was blocked because they were a sockpuppet of @Dschor; certainly this can't be correct, because you cannot be a sockpuppet of your own username.

Could an admin please step in and clarify the situation? GrinningIodize (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this log explains it—although it's more of a forest than a log. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They were blocked twenty years ago. How did you even find this page? -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia rabbithole. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocking admin here. Someone used the wrong template (Special:Diff/319386280) back in 2009, three years after the indefinite block. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

xkcd:386 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I presume this is the master, then. Secretlondon (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Review of Deleted Contributions

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’ve noticed that some of my contributions on ANI have been deleted. I have re-added the content, but I am concerned it may be removed again. My edits were made in good faith, and comply with Wikipedia policies.

I would appreciate it if an administrator could review these deletions to ensure they are justified and to prevent repeated removal of content that adheres to Wikipedia standards. For reference, the edits in question include:

• Orlando Davis LLM

Thank you for your time and assistance. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for fixing the double redirects in Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information

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. Please anyone here for fix the double redirects in redirect pages Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information. Thanks. ~2025-37499-53 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase

There's a large backlog at this page right now, with over 60 requests currently waiting for a response. Some admin help may be appreciated here. Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A reminder to admins helping out - please remember to tag the entries you protect at RFPP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @The Bushranger. I forget there's no bot like at UAA that handles that piece. Definitely guilty of a few protect and runs. My apologies. Star Mississippi 03:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Deleted Contributions

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’ve noticed that some of my contributions on ANI have been deleted. I have re-added the content, but I am concerned it may be removed again. My edits were made in good faith, and comply with Wikipedia policies.

I would appreciate it if an administrator could review these deletions to ensure they are justified and to prevent repeated removal of content that adheres to Wikipedia standards. For reference, the edits in question include:

• Orlando Davis LLM

Thank you for your time and assistance. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for fixing the double redirects in Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information

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. Please anyone here for fix the double redirects in redirect pages Draft:Swati tribe and User:Repulsive hegemony card/used for information. Thanks. ~2025-37499-53 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase

There's a large backlog at this page right now, with over 60 requests currently waiting for a response. Some admin help may be appreciated here. Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A reminder to admins helping out - please remember to tag the entries you protect at RFPP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @The Bushranger. I forget there's no bot like at UAA that handles that piece. Definitely guilty of a few protect and runs. My apologies. Star Mississippi 03:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Voting in the Arbitration Committee elections is now open

It's that time of year again. Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open, and runs until 23:59, 01 December 2025 (UTC). You can vote using the big blue button at the top of the linked page, or by going to Special:SecurePoll/vote/859. Giraffer (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A plea to admins to increase efficiency

Recently, I've been having a number of medical issues which have made life difficult. This has made me very conscious of how much effort I have to put into even small tasks. It has also made me quite impatient at times when having to deal with long duration, high level pain. To all of my fellow admins, I beg of you; if you've handled a situation reported at WP:AN/I such that another administrator doesn't need to do anything further, please take the time to add {{atop}} and {{abot}} templates to close the discussion. It's frustrating to start spending a fair bit of time trying to untangle something being reported on WP:AN/I only to found out an administrator has already dealt with it, and the time you invested in trying to tackle the issue was a complete waste. Even if I wasn't suffering my current medical issues, I would tell all of you; this helps us all. The number of active administrators is quite small relative to the number of things that need to be managed. Taking a little bit of time to close a discussion can save a lot of admin time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC) (To some; don't worry, I'm going to live and theoretically be pain free in about two weeks. To others; sorry to disappoint, but I'm going to make it out of all this alive for the foreseeable future. Though, take heart; I'm going to suffer for a long time yet!)

Is there anything I can do to help - add a specific post to the bottom perhaps so you can see it? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I was one taken to ArbCom because somebody decided that by closing the ANI topic with a {{atop}} I was saving the user against which the topic was open (who happened to be administrator, and thus I allegedly protected a colleague administrator, as dictated by the admin cabal). This was one of my ArbCom experiences which was relatively painless, but still it was not nice. I just stopped closing topics except for really (imo) obvious cases. Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear you will be OK in the relative short term, but sorry to hear you're dealing with health issues.

When folks don't feel it's ready for closure or that they shouldn't be the one to close (myself included at times), please at least bold your action so we know which part of it is done and which may need further action. P-block, etc. and editors can decide whether to continue to weigh in or scroll on to open items. For all the internet history against all caps, INDEF does not stand out the way INDEF does to these tired middle aged eyes. Star Mississippi 23:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not comfortable closing discussions where I have taken administrative action. Other editors often bring forth additional information that may transform a one week block into an indefinite block, or other relevant information that I did not notice. I am sometimes criticized as too lenient or too strict, and I try to be receptive to such feedback, and am reluctant to shut down that input. I also try to state clearly what administrative action I have taken although I was recently delayed on one report because my four month old puppy got into mischief. I will try to remember Star Mississippi's suggestion and BOLD the actions I have taken. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been self-closing the simple ones. For example, TPA revocation requests when the disruption is clearly there. Unfortunately, the real reading and review burden is for the complex ones. Maybe remind admins to close topics when they read them and find nothing else is needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Not too long ago, someone made the suggestion of using status templates (like "needs attention" or "resolved") that would help reviewing admins focus on just those threads that needed review without wasting their time on threads that didn't need further review. I don't remember what it was called or where/when it was discussed exactly. It was a good idea, so it was not adopted. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There are the different colored flags at {{ANI status}} which may help fulfill this purpose. Left guide (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's the one -- thanks! That could be used, as one example, in the situations where someone thinks a thread is ready to be closed but for whatever reason doesn't want to close it. And also, as another example, it can be used to highlight the threads that need attention, so editors don't have to read all of the threads to figure out which ones need attention. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is super helpful, thanks @Left guide Star Mississippi 03:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I really like this! Pretty similar to what we're doing at WP:AINB! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• I don't close discussions where I've used admin bits or authority, unless it was trivial like fixing a broke page. To me, real discussions should NOT be closed by the admin that took action, it should be left over for review, at least by one other person (admin or not) that is qualified to close the discussion. Accountability is the reason. Closing a discussion where I blocked someone, or put some other sanction, then closing it, strikes me as very bad form, like I would be trying to stop further discussion or sweep it under the rug. I would instead suggest avoiding the long discussions, or jump to the bottom first, which is something I actually do before I invest time in reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that closing when you've taken admin action is a bad idea, with some exceptions (the one I can think of offhand is WP:DENY-type closes when you've blocked a sockpuppet). -- asilvering (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for fixing the double redirects in Jon Blake (broadcaster)

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. Please anyone here for fix the double redirects in redirect pages Jon Blake (broadcaster). Thanks. ~2025-37838-92 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hipal blanked sourced dob, says United Press International is "unreliable"

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.

---

Hipal blanked Demie's date of birth (repeatedly) then trolled my talk page saying it was "unsourced" (an outright lie) and "poorly sourced defamatory" (also an outright lie). This is beyond ridiculous and must be stopped.

(Of course, the CABI has indisputable proof of Demie's age, but Wiki has some bizarre rule forbidding it so we have to make due with secondary sources like UPI.) Was-a-singin (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hipal_blanked_sourced_dob,_says_United_Press_International_is_"unreliable" --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LAyub12

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.

---

Can someone please ban the account User:LAyub12? Their only objective is to plant false death information on biographies of living people. Thanks. Jkaharper (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jkaharper The correct place for this kind of report is WP:ANI. Toadspike [Talk] 15:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks – I did originally draft it out there but changed my mind and put it here. I'll stick it there now. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2025 Arbitration Committee election preliminary results

The (uncertified) results of the 2025 ArbCom elections have been posted at WP:ACE2025.

We owe a massive thanks to EPIC, Mykola7, and XXBlackburnXx for their incredibly quick scrutineering, wrapping up just a little over a day after voting closed.

Many congratulations to those elected! Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Master Editor user breaking guidelines

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:DanielRigal is engaging in edit warring and removing Talk page posts because they do not adhere to his personal beliefs and this appears to be an ongoing issue. He is also making false claims in his reasons for editing in order to attempt to evade the guidelines (e.g. "trolling" and "weird copypasta"). In addition, he has also made multiple ban threats against me, including threatening that I will be banned if I report him on this page. ~2025-36066-88 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I was just gathering diffs and preparing a report on this temporary account but it seems that they have saved me the bother. Rather than start a separate section I'll just paste it here:

~2025-36066-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36066-88 is engaged in transphobic trolling. They are clearly only here to try to cause trouble by making deliberately offensive statements. Their sole edit in article space was an unexplained and POV content removal at Gender nonconformity which was reverted (not by myself). Apart from that it is all just Talk page griefing: 1 (Note the inflamatory section title and the use of "transgenderism"), 2, 3 (moaning about the article being correct). That latter edit is being repeatedly reinstated despite it being nothing but WP:NOTFORUM trolling. My reversions were all well within the spirit of NOTFORUM and WP:DENY.

~2025-36066-88 has ignored valid warnings and seems to be familiar enough with at least some of our policies to know what they are doing.

In summary, I think a strong and decisive BOOMERANG is required here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed, NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP problems

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 need another pair of eyes. Let's start with this diff, where the BLP is trampled--I didn't know the extent until I scrolled all the way down, to the "exposure" bit. In addition, the editor has a problem with the article creator (who, BTW, also has a COI), and outed them. I really want out of this mess: I am way too involved to take the actions that I think are necessary, which also included revdel, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I see a healthy dose of WP:IDHT from that editor. Especially with the warning about posting personal info, which is a big no no. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I just revdeled a bunch of his edit summaries. Left the text as it was for now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have closed the DRN request, both because discussion on the article talk page was inadequate, and because discussion is also in progress in another forum, here at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

(As the editor who offered to moderate the DRN discussion) Is it fair to say the discussion is still ongoing pos-revdel, when no one has said anything in over a day? It might make sense to wait for Lhotserunner to say something here but I don't know that they plan to. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 05:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Lhotserunner asked a question at my talk. More guidance and attention to the article would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the article. Honestly, it's not that bad any more. Some excessive detail. Things are well sourced. The bits missing that @Lhotserunner is complaining about I'm struggling to find sources for online, or they're things Lhotserunner has a very negative view of (e.g. the death of Michael Matthews), that isn't supported by the RSes / the court of law.

This comment [15] on Johnuniq's talk is just riddled with libel - @Drmies, @Seawolf35 at this point I think a short block is in order, it's a real case of WP:IDHT. Timtjtim (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Timtjtim, I appreciate you getting in on this, and User:Johnuniq, thanks as well. Yes, riddled with libel--as far as I'm concerned the user is NOT HERE and simply needs to be blocked. And "my new Dutch friend"--WTF? am I to be outed next? Oversighters can see, in Lhotserunner's contributions, that I wouldn't be the first one to get outed. That, combined with the libel, the edit warring, the insults, the BLP violations--surely that's enough. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What libel? The information provided was published years ago by respected magazines and newspapers and no one sued anyone. Rather than focussing on each other do you want to work on this story? Lhotserunner (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't especially want to work on this story, no. I want you to stop violating BLP, and start listening to everyone around you.

I don't care if respected magazines and newspapers (allegedly) published it, I care if it's allowed on Wikipedia. The entire time you've engaged in this edit war, and still here, you have alluded to books, magazines and newspapers, and provided exactly 0 evidence to back up you claims. Please, please understand how we cannot just take your word that what you say is true when you provide no evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary. If you can provide copies of those news reports, I'll take a look at them; until then, I want you to start following the Wikipedia rules about libel. Frankly, though, if you can't see how accusing someone of murder, contrary to a court case, is libel, I doubt you're going to. I've outlined what I expect from you, and the problems with what you're doing, here: [16] and I really don't want to keep repeating myself to someone who's WP:ICHY:

Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive.

Genuine belief that you have a valid point does not mean that point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

Please just move on from this. If you want your accusations researched, and your alleged evidence published, reach out to one of those respected newspapers. Timtjtim (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. I and others already did and the detes I'm pointing out were published years ago. As I said, I won't make another attempt to edit your story. "The community," I hope, isn't just a single opinion block! Even newspapers have editors who war with each other over these issues. Lhotserunner (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I've indeffed the editor. That's a lot of unwanted behavior and they are really not getting the point. WP:BLP is not an option. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all! Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

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 context is that the user @Phoenixxfeather: removed a politician's name from an article (which contained one of his statistics), which was an obvious vandalism, so I reverted it and warned him with uw-vandalism2. After that, he accused me of political affiliation (which is false), claimed that I am spreading "false propaganda," and, most importantly, made hostile statements such as "Be careful before threatening me the next time. I will report you." I felt offended and warned him with uw-harass4im template. After that, it escalated further, and he said,"IF YOU KEEP THREATENING ME THIS WILL NOT END GOOD FOR YOU. ALSO MY VERY LAST WARNING TO YOU! I HEREBY ORDER YOU TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH PROVOCATIVE AND THREATENING STATEMENTS!"

These messages contain intimidation, personal attacks, and escalating hostility, with no attempt to discuss content or policy.

Link to their talk page containing the full exchange: User talk:Phoenixxfeather#December 2025

• diff1
• diff2

Also, let me show you something, which might be irrelevant to this report, but still...

• Talk:Bangladesh Premier League#Remove Shakib Al Hasan, who is a convicted criminal and is currently on the run
• Talk:2021–22 Bangladesh Premier League#Sponsorship is in the name of the Fascist Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur

He just wants to spread his political opinion through wikipedia, not knowing what wikipedia is not.

This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I have not responded further to avoid escalation, and I am requesting admin intervention. Raihanur (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Response to Allegation by User: Raihanur

I reject the baseless and misleading claims made by User @Raihanur regarding our recent interaction.

Firstly, it is important to clarify that the user Raihanur was the first to engage in threatening behavior after reverting my contribution without any attempt at explanation, dialogue, or assuming good faith. Instead of addressing the issue respectfully, Raihanur issued an aggressive vandalism warning without prior discussion, and then escalated further by using an inappropriately high-level harassment template (uw-harass4im), implying deliberate harassment, which was both unwarranted and provocative.

Had Raihanur chosen to approach the matter with civility or provided any explanation, this escalation could have been avoided. Mutual respect and good faith are the cornerstones of any collaborative platform, especially Wikipedia. However, Raihanur's immediate resort to warnings and intimidation demonstrates a lack of interest in discussion or policy-based resolution. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope ChatGPT is not hiding the boorish behaviour underneath ~2025-37961-94 (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize! I didn’t realize my use of ChatGPT required external approval! Phoenixxfeather (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:AITALK. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

noted! Phoenixxfeather (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I hereby retract all statements I made toward the user @Raihanur, as the exchange became personal and, in my view, has no place on a platform such as Wikipedia.

However, I do not issue an apology, as I believe the remarks directed at me by the aforementioned user constituted a personal attack. Consequently, I have nothing further to add regarding this matter.

Should my conduct warrant any disciplinary measures in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines, I fully understand and accept the consequences. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: The user is removing those conversations from the talk page. I've reverted it once. Raihanur (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages, subject to a few exceptions - see WP:BLANKING. ~2025-37877-41 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got it now. Raihanur (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Query: Just to check, is this the right place for this discussion, or should it be at WP:ANI? Raihanur (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  ANI as it is a chronic incident. Requesting speedy closure of this section. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator Elections - Discussion Phase

The discussion phase of the December 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 4–8 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Discussion phase.

On December 9, 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. 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 totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Here to socialise, not to build an encyclopedia

User:Trish stratus01 has been jumping all over talk pages with what seems to be attempts to socialise - see for example multiple edits on the Stratus talk page that have been reverted. I very much doubt it's the real Trish Stratus but rather a fan. The user is fairly new but even at this stage I don't this user is here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Could we have some admin thoughts on this? ~2025-38328-52 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The user page says parody. I sent to WP:UAA. CMD (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Softblocked for using the name of a real well-known person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with COI editor at Barclay Tagg

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.

---

Could an admin who is well versed in COI issues guide RachelAtSackatoga to her desired edit to Barclay Tagg, an article she has selfdeclared COI with?
Some of her desired changes are likely fine, specifically the "Early Life and Education" through "Major Racing Wins (Selected)" sections (assuming the sources are up to par) but some WP:PRIMARY is used giving me pause, and some peacock phrasing and unsourced Personal Life claims are an issue. I object to the change in the short description and infobox (infobox should be a summary, not an all inclusive list of wins). Discussion present at User talk:RachelAtSackatoga#Managing a conflict of interest, feel free to take the lead, I'm fairly close to the end of my knowledge of this matter and would like someone better versed in COI and WP:RS to assist. Thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TMNT

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.

---

Edit warring about the genres of TMNT films; Multiplivision, and Zingo156Hollowdame (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll say this one more time: Box Office Mojo is NOT a reliable source for film genres. Multiplivision (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It is; we use it all the time for box-office records; look at the facts, bro Hollowdame (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's for box office records. We NEVER use BOM for film genres. Multiplivision (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Multiplivision on this. Box Office Mojo can be used as a source for box office records, but not for genres. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Multiplivision (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In which part of Wikipedia saids that! Hollowdame (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

????? Multiplivision (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In what world do we ever use Box Office Mojo as a source for film genres? Explain that to me. Multiplivision (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

When we want to prove that one film is one genre and not the other. Hollowdame (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

NO ONE has ever used BOM for film genre sourcing tfym Multiplivision (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ll stop edit warring under the conditions that you find sources for Superhero film. Hollowdame (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Lmao enjoy being blocked for edit warring then Multiplivision (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring should be taken to WP:ANEW. Anything else looks like a content issue that should be discussed on article talk pages, with WP:DR available if necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

[17] Should this do it then Hollowdame (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not here, admins don't deal with content disputes. Please take this discussion to the article Talk page and talk it through with other editors. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hollowdame blocked 24 hours for 6RR on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 film). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban request from Elijah Wilder

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.

---

Elijah Wilder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am extremely sorry for my prior actions and all of the problems I caused as well as the time I took up of those people. I promise that I haven’t tried to edit Wikipedia or make an account in the past 6 months. Back when I got blocked, I was making edits to pages that I thought needed to be edited as well as trying the templates on each of those pages. I was very curious about it back then and didn’t realize how much of an issue and impact it had by me doing that. I was also obsessed with power and wanted to do anything I could to get some sort of access level about everyone else. I did it because I was bored and I found Wikipedia and wanted to explore and somewhat mess around. Since then, I have realized how what I have done has caused many people to take a lot of time out of their days to deal with me. The edits I have been wanting to make have been around my county, town, and some of the businesses in my town listed there. I have gone through a lot of history things about my town and want to be able to share them with anyone whom is interested in reading it. To everyone who had to deal with me in the past and now, I have no words to express how sorry I am for the actions I have done. Elijah Wilder (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Carried over from their talk page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock pending check user. Has had sufficient time for personal growth sufficient to become a constructive contributor.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  This next seems obvious to me, but they need an unblock condition of a one account only restriction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a one account restriction. Toadspike [Talk] 06:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support with one account. See User talk:Elijah Wilder#Unblock Request- Elijah Wilder for more info about past sockpuppetry and current CU response. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  A link to Asivering's CU comment. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock. It's been a little short of three years since the original block, a little under a year and nine months since the last sockpuppet use, and longer than that since the last abusive editing, as far as I know. That is plenty of time for a young person to change their approach, and I believe we should give them a chance to show that they have done so. JBW (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twinkle block reason field

A change has been proposed for Twinkle's block module for which your input would be welcome. Right now, there are checkboxes to refer to the filter log and deleted contribs in the block reason. Would it be useful to add another one for related temporary accounts? It only shows up when blocking a temporary account. Screenshot available in https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/pull/2250. – SD0001 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the idea that this would prompt an admin reviewing the block to look at the underlying IP and see what other TAs attached to it have been up to? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. – SD0001 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The change is now live. – SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

ANI case needs action

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.

---

WP:ANI § Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE needs action. There is widespread support for a community sanction, including from multiple admins. Has been open for days without a vote in over 24 hours. The editor in question is also continuously misusing their talk page after having been warned [18] by @Star Mississippi (who is mostly unavailable this week) that this could lead to losing TPA, so action may be needed there as well. NicheSports (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I need to notify this editor given they were already notified about the ANI filing, but let me know if I do actually need to. Thanks NicheSports (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access for the duration of his block. Someone else should evaluate the CBAN discussion, since I've done this. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with Polygnotus' decision to ping a random admin to the ANI case, but now we have this [19]. Can someone familiar with such cases please help take over and assess the CBAN before this situation gets even more complicated. NicheSports (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance with creating a new article!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I am a registered Wikipedia user and I created a draft article for “Infinity ECN.” I understand that new articles must comply with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines.

I understand why my previous attempts were blocked and have rewritten a draft to best comply with Wikipedia's policy. My draft is prepared in my sandbox, and I would like to ensure it is properly structured and neutral before submitting it to the main space.

If there are still areas where the article does not comply, I would appreciate guidance on how to restructure it.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Joseph, JosephTheAuthor (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a matter that administrators help with. Please ask your question over at the Teahouse, where there are lots of experienced editors who will be happy to help you. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:162 etc. removing move request for no reason

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 user:162 etc. is literally removing the move request at FIFA World Cup 2026 for no reason, you can check the move request itself on the talk page. ~2025-38412-37 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This IP editor is acting in bad faith and has been reported to WP:AIV. See also WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. 162 etc. (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I threw a boomerang. It didn't hit me because I'm bad at throwing boomerangs. Izno (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And also this is the relevant LTA, yes. Izno (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, this is almost certainly the same person as the OP. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Note this is now a serial block evader with multiple underlying-IP blocks for RM-related disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the other side of this as well, feels like RM disruption has become a fad of late for a quite random selection of topics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but reverting this when blatant is OK right? I noticed others have been more reluctant to do so and instead engaging or closing such RMs, as I did previously with some of these, until today at least. CNC (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, when it's blatant, WP:RBI applies (well, if you're not an admin maybe 'RRI' - revert, report, ignore - but it's the principle of the thing). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, insightful essay as well. CNC (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ban appeal

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 time has passed since my t-ban Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos. I would like to see if this ban can be narrowed (to maybe just the specific article) or even removed. Five years has passed since the offense and I am apologetic about it and think I have demonstrated good behavior since then. Particularly I would like to just get the ban narrowed so I don't accidently run afoul of it, as I do like to edit Asia topics. I don't have any particular interest in topics in the offending country, I rather was uncivil on this particular article. Since this offense I have learned to use noticeboards or talk pages more when dealing with what I feel is BLP issues on a page of a former politician. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I just read the discussion that resulted in your topic ban from Imelda Marcos, and in all honesty, I concluded that you had engaged in pretty severe misconduct, especially regarding aggressive removal of references to reliable sources that you disliked, and that your misconduct went way beyond incivility. Accordingly, I am reluctant to agree to remove or narrow the topic ban, at least until you explain why you went off the rails so badly and how you can assure us that it will not happen again. You say that you are interested in editing Asia articles, but your topic ban does not mention Asia, and I feel confident in saying that over 99.9% of articles about Asia do not even mention Imelda Marcos. You should be able to edit those articles in compliance with policies and guidelines without any worry about your topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I recall the source that I removed was an alleged book that the editors had stated was so rare and could not be found anywhere online and that they had to go to the library to read and and we need to trust them on it. That source was being used for a large quantity of negative content. I simply went off the rails removing the excessive negative POV from the article subject. The tban I think covers all topics in that country and is not limited to that family empire, thus I would need to (for example) be careful when editing the scam center articles that touch Philippines (such as Alice Guo, etc). During the ban discussion editors were not interested in hearing any explanation, and started threatening me with a full ban when I explained early on, so I stopped explaining it as I didn't want to get a full ban. Sometimes you have to just know when to quit, and it was already too late, so better late than never. Anyhow, thanks for your consideration the ban isn't a big deal and as you said I can continue to edit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, your recollection of the "rare book" issue is deeply flawed. Did you bother to re-read that discussion to refresh your memory? When you use the word "alleged" today, are you trying to create doubt that the book exists? Do you object to the policy that books whose text is not available online can be reliable sources? Here is the complete and entire wording of your topic ban: you are now topic banned from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed. Please explain why you just wrote The tban I think covers all topics in that country when that is quite obviously not the case? Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, apologies I hadn't re-reviewed the t-ban discussion, was just going off memory and could easily be flawed given the time that has passed. I thought I recalled someone saying in the ban that broadly construed meant all politics in the subject country, so I was just going off that from an abundance of caution. Apologies again for not checking into it more closely before raising this. The reason I didnt look again was my recollection was that I failed to find consensus for the changes (I should have used a third opinion when I felt I was facing BLPRESTORE issues with regular editors of the article, and to my recollection I had only showed up on that article recently to do some cleanup of NPOV issues that I felt I saw). Here really isnt the venue to justify my actions, as I have already stated my actions were wrong. Anyhow, water under the bridge at this point and I recognize that you and apparently other editors below here dont support any change to the ban. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Comments in this thread make clear that the user has not changed their attitude that was at the core of the t-ban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose One of the most important behavioral characteristics of a productive Wikipedia editor is to accurately and fully describe the circumstances when trying to resolve any dispute or controversy. This may require re-reading previous discussions especially when a lot of time has gone by. This is especially important when appealing a sanction. This editor has clearly not presented accurate information here and has admitted that they have failed to even take a few minutes to refresh their own memory. I cannot support any modification of a sanction when the editor understands neither why the sanction was imposed nor the boundaries of the sanction. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor using account on English language Wikipedia to breach block in other language version

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 want to report disruptive behavior by @Bjornkarateboy.

The editor in question was indefinitely blocked from editing the Icelandic language Wikipedia about half a year ago, due to persistent breaches of conduct and repeated sockpuppetry over the course of about a year. Since then, he has repeatedly attempted to evade his block using more sockpuppet accounts and a host of different IP addresses. He has been indefinitely blocked in several other language versions for similar offenses.

The editor claims he now wants to focus on editing the English language Wikipedia in order to better learn how to edit productively, and potentially have his block lifted eventually.

However, in practice, he has mostly been using his English language account as a tool to evade his block on the Icelandic Wikipedia, and to try influencing its policy discussions in roundabout ways. He has repeatedly left messages on the English talk pages of editors who are administrators on the Icelandic Wiki, pestering them about having been blocked and trying to negotiate for his block to be lifted.

In at least one case, he has used his English Wikipedia Sandbox to draft an article that he later published on the Icelandic language Wikipedia using an anonymous account, effectively using the English language draftspace to intentionally violate a ban in one of its sister Wikis.

In other cases, he has used his English account to solicit advice for edits that he later proceeds to make on the Icelandic Wikipedia in wilful violation of his ban.

A quick look at the editor's contribution history shows that he mainly uses his English language account as a kind of proxy account for the Icelandic language Wikipedia, complaining about his Icelandic language edits being reversed or deleted, and preparing violations of his block on that Wiki.

It's gotten to the point where his continued activities on the English language Wikipedia are, quite frankly, starting to put a strain on the admins on the Icelandic language wiki, who are a small group. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Without considering anything that might be wrong locally (you probably should have highlighted better the crosswiki harassment), probably, the right thing to do is request a global (b)lock at meta:SRG. 3 blocks crosswiki is usually the number to convince the stewards to act and I count 2 indefs and 2 more longterm blocks. Izno (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I already made that request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The steward said no, for now. Regardless of whether a ban is appropriate, it seems pertinent to me that he not be allowed to use his global account, and his English account in particular, as a springboard to continue his constant vandalism on the Icelandic Wiki. TKSnaevarr (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I’ve now globally blocked the account. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 05:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChronoEditor1 repeated use of LLM in talk pages, FORUM-y, legal threats?

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.

---

First warning here

Use of LLM again, using talk page as a forum here

Use of LLM yet again, using talk page as a forum here Use of LLM yet again, this time with threats to "write an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO" here

Finally, FORUM-y post on talk page, maybe a bit of WP:ICHY here

If this is the wrong venue, please tell me about it, thank you. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! The best venue for that would be WP:AN/I. Once you move it there, you should also leave the user a talk page notification with {{ANI-notice}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

sorry @Chaotic Enby, but how do i change venue? do i just copy and paste the thread? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-30597-01 Yes, I think so. Toadspike [Talk] 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I've copy pasted the AN thread to ANI, please close this thread. thank you! ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Names(s) with format "~2025-XXXXX-XX"

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 find a lot of users with a name starting as ~2025-*. Each one of them them have edits on just a few pages, but there are many of them. I suspect these are all sock puppets, and these names are created on the fly based on some time stamps. All of them seem to me to be WP:BE instances. I searched the archive, but I am not sure this has been reported yet.

• ~2025-35382-88 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-39141-70 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-38759-13 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-39145-12 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-37614-79 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-39130-02 (talk · contribs)
• and others...

Do admins have some suggestions?

Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing the GS authorization for United Kingdom systems of measurement. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks

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 user @FactCheckerBharath: attacking me personally here in a disturbing manner. His uncivil comments are against Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Collaboration first. He also blames me falsely, insulting my contributions and accusing my edit as "negative content". Anbarasan1523 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anbarasan1523 These are mostly benign comments, not invectives or egregious personal attacks. No administrator intervention is needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: His comments are clearly not in good intent. For example, he said about me He then waited 30 days, made multiple edits across various pages to obtain extended-confirmed status, and has now returned to add only negative content to this article. which is untrue. If that was my intent, I would have stopped at 500th edit and returned after 30 days. Also, insulting a user's edit as "negative content" is serious personal attack. And his suggestion I request that moderators or administrators review his editing behaviour and consider restricting his edits on this page seems like a threat. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Referring to an edit as "negative content" is literally commenting on the content, not the contributor, and thus is by definition not a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The first one certainly wasn't good, since it cast WP:ASPERSIONS, but it wasn't really at the ANI level; sharp elbows are sometimes thrown around here. The second, similarly, wasn't collaborative, but it was also invoking a normal Wikipedia process.

@FactCheckerBharath, I urge you to cut it out before it does become an ANI issue. You should keep your comments to others about content and you should either stick to productive edit requests (only) on this topic or stay away from the topic completely. The community has very limited patience with nonsense in this topic area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change of iban

I have an 1-way iban with another editor. I would like to have it changed to either a tban in the topic of doctor who(as that's where the issues were) or have it removed altogether if possible. I'm asking for the changing of the iban because it's affecting my ability to edit articles completely unrelated to the whole fiasco. I have no idea what info or answers to give here, because I don't know the correct procedure to ask this, so feel free to ask me any questions? HSLover/DWF (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DoctorWhoFan91. Your first step is to provide a diff to the discussion that led to the interaction ban. Then, you need to explain what went wrong and why you received this ban. Then you need to explain what you have learned from the incident and provide convincing assurances that the same or similar behavioral problems will not happen again. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes

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.

---

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Chrisahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Notified: User_talk:Beland#RFC_closure_appeal

Reasoning: At least 2 editors reported unsatisfactory result. Gigman (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Closer (Beland)

Clarification posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Note from closer. -- Beland (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Non-participants (MOS)

Participants (MOS)

Discussion (MOS)

• This request has not been posted by the editor named as "User requesting review", User:Chrisahn, but by User:Glebushko0703 (signature:Gigman), who is in dispute with Chrisahn over it. Chrisahn wrote I'll post a more detailed challenge on WP:AN tomorrow[20], Glebushk0703 wrote If you're busy, I'll help you by posting your appeal myself.[21] NebY (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  He explained his reasoning pretty clear in various related discussions, but he said he will not be able to post it. Then tomorrow came, but he still didn't do it, so I notified the user before posting his appeal for him. Is that prohibited by rules? Gigman (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes logic would dictate that when the user requesting review has said you're not doing this on my behalf [22], you can't go opening a challenge on their behalf. CNC (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  On second thoughts, I recommend you strike "User requesting review: Chrisahn ..." as it's clearly false representation and inappropriate. I almost did this myself, but maybe you want to change the user to a user who is actually wanting a review? If not yourself nor anyone else, this would be better withdrawn. CNC (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I've notified Chrisahn that they've been mentioned in this thread, as that had not been done. NebY (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

He was notified by me in a separate discussion mentioned above. Gigman (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• 2 editors reported unsatisfactory result is not a good enough reason to challenge a close. Please can you describe what was specifically wrong or inccuarte about the close. CNC (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think we should wait for those 2 users. As mentioned above, I've only posted the appeal. They were notified in a different discussion. Gigman (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• This approach by Glebushko0703/Gigman is unusual, to say the last. G liked the outcome of the close, defended it, and even went ahead and made mass changes while it was being challenged. I haven't had much time for Wikipedia in the last 36 hours or so. I hope I'll have enough time to write a proper appeal in the next couple of hours, but I'm not sure yet. I feel that G is trying to rush the matter, but there is no hurry. The issue of Baltic birth places has been discussed for years (decades?). There is absolutely no reason to rush it now. I don't know what G has in mind, and I'd like to make it very clear that this appeal has not been done on my behalf. I made that clear before G posted the appeal. I think this appeal should be closed or deleted. I'd prefer to post the appeal myself, and I don't want to be forced by anyone. Maybe I'll get to it today, maybe tomorrow. Given the scope of the issue, a few days don't matter. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  The appeal itself was definitely rather unusual (and quite inappropriate technically becasue of the suggestion that it was your appeal), but implementing a closed RFC is certainly not unusual or inappropriate. There's no requirement that the consensus determined in an RFC may not be implemented while someone, somewhere, is unhappy with the result. And that goes the same whether or not the unhappy person(s) is/are planning an appeal, otherwise RFCs would be worthless since anyone who disagreed with the close would have a pocket veto. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm rushing this because yesterday you said that you will post an appeal tomorrow (so today), and now you're saying that you've changed your mind... What's the point of misinformation if you're not going to do what you said?

  Also, the longer you wait - the more changes are being done by users while the consensus is marked as valid. If you want to post it yourself whenever you like, you could just say so at very start.

Gigman (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• There was a misunderstanding between the user who requested the appeal and the user who posted it (me), so I would like to withdraw this request. Gigman (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to make this very clear as well: "There was a misunderstanding between the user ..." – No, there wasn't. G decided to post this appeal. I never asked G to do anything like this. I didn't even discuss it with G. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Theres no need for false allegations here, the appeal request was closed

I never claimed I asked you about anything, I've only notified you before posting. You have expressed your position and said you are going to post an appeal tomorrow, but since you didn't do that, I decided to do this instead of you, referring to you as as the one who requested it (since you did). I Gigman (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Chrisahn wrote "I'll post a more detailed challenge on WP:AN tomorrow" yesterday, 7 December. You didn't wait to see if they would make a request by the end of 8 December in their timezone. Instead you posted here that they were now making a request, which wasn't true, and you provided a wholly inadequate reason for the request, thus representing it as having no good foundation. This spurious request will have consumed some of the time and attention that Chrisahn was planning to give to Wikipedia today. It would be good if Chrisahn could post any review request sooner rather than later, but if your actions have delayed it, that's your responsibility. Your actions here have clearly been disruptive. NebY (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

GrandKokla rename request

GrandKokla has made a rename request on Meta for the username GrandNewbien. They mentioned the reason: "I use the GrandNewbien username across the web, including here when it was previously banned for vandalism. It was a mistake in my tween years, and now being in my 30s, I deeply regret it." While GrandNewbien is not registered, the account Grandnewbien is registered and was blocked on English Wikipedia in 2007 for vandalism, and I believe this is the account they are referring to. If so, do they need to request an unblock from their current account, GrandKokla, in order to edit English Wikipedia, since they likely no longer have access to the old Grandnewbien account to request an unblock from there? Or can they edit enwiki without any unblock request? I want to be clear on this so I can handle the rename request accordingly and guide them on the next steps. Noting that they have already made 67 edits to English Wikipedia with the GrandKokla account. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Grandnewbien was able to log in and file an appeal in 2022 (see Special:Diff/1099313857), so it does seem like they have access to the account (at least within the past few years). Their unblock request was declined due to a lack of response rather than for a specific issue. Can they log in and file a new appeal, and be sure to address any queries about it when asked? —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, he appears to have access to Grandnewbien, as that account visited Commons in June. JayCubby 18:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I do have access to that account as well, would my edits made on this account be merged with that one? I'll submit another request for an unblock. GrandKokla (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be merged. However, if you can demonstrate that you have access to "Grandnewbien" and successfully appeal the block, you can usurp it so that your new account can use the name of your old account. The edits on your old account would be moved to a different username ("Grandnewbien (usurped)"). —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @GrandKokla. – DreamRimmer ■ 08:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi DreamRimmer, Grandnewbien has been unblocked as of yesterday! Would this allow the usurpation to proceed? GrandKokla (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@GrandKokla: sure, please comment on the rename request using the Grandnewbie account to confirm that you are the same person. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2025

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

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:North Korea and African Decolonization

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.

---

• Draft:North Korea and African Decolonization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has had a speedy tag on it for over 24 hours... if someone could please delete it so that I can finish cleaning up the mess that I made? See User_talk:Naihuangbao#About_your_AFC_draft for additional context. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. @Taking Out The Trash, you can complete the cleanup now. Also, custard buns are delicious. Toadspike [Talk] 16:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Move also done. Toadspike [Talk] 16:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2026 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community.

The two-year terms of these members formally begin on 1 January 2026:

• Aoidh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asilvering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SilverLocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The one-year terms of these members formally begin on 1 January 2026:

• Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming members have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

The Committee will make a further announcement about outgoing arbitrators before the 2026 committee takes office.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 19:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2026 Arbitration Committee

Administrator Elections - Voting Phase

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Removal of verified content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Administrators , it has come to my notice that the wikipedia page of Radhika Veena Sadhika is being edited by bot accounts or users who do not even see citations and check the verified content but still remove content as per their wish and then put forceful protection which disrupts and stops others from correcting. These users are jay8g , aesurias and more , pls look into the matter. Indianmusicloveriml (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Go peddle your LLM-generated promotional drek somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not generated promotional content , it is verified content , pls take out the time to read on the internet before directly making changes or removing content , I believe as as admin you can do that to make sure authenticity is there rather than just deleting content based on your willingness. ~2025-39351-15 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block 2409:4000::/22

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.

---

Why was this IP address blocked for one year! It is a VERY large range! AceOfClubs2025 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC) — AceOfClubs2025 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There's a particularly aggressive WP:LTA operating from this range. Prior escalating blocks were not sufficient. This block is anon-only, meaning anyone is free to edit from this IP address range, provided they sign in to their account. WP:ACC is available to those without an account. It's a big block, that's for sure. If prior blocks had been remotely sufficient, that would have been great. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

In that case, should the reason say that you can use WP:ACC? 99% of people won’t know what it is! AceOfClubs2025 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'll make that change. --Yamla (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "block expungement" possible?

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.

---

Seven years ago, I misclicked and accidentally blocked Zackmann08 for 12 seconds. I immediately unblocked the editor and apologized. Today, they began a discussion at User_talk: Cullen328#Block Expungement asking me to use revision deletion to eliminate the record of the block, since they consider it a "black mark" on their record. I happened to be away from home and from Wikipedia for a few hours and a lively discussion ensued on my talk page while I was driving. There was an incorrect assumption that a grizzled old adminstrator like me would know what to do. I don't. So, I am asking for information and advice about the proper course of action. I have already given Zackmann08 a fresh apology. What else should I do? Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to chime in here I want to be clear, there is no ill will towards Cullen328 for what was an obvious mistake. Yes it was 7 years ago and I have moved on. However, every once in a while, another editor will chime in during a debate with a well Zackmann08 has a history of being blocked type comment. Now agreed, no serious editor takes that comment seriously if they take the time to consult the block log. The issue is that I cannot technically refute that statement with no I haven't and that is very frustrating.

I was going down an unrelated rabbit hole and recently came across a Mediawiki thread that revealed to me that from a technical standpoint, it is not only possible, but fairly easy for the record of my block to be removed. It just requires an admin to perform a REVDEL on the block. That is why I'm bringing it up after all this time.

I also want to be clear, had been legitimately blocked for something, even if it was 20 years ago and even if it was only for a few minutes, I would not be here asking for it to be removed. I understand that would be a spot on my record forever. But given that this was a clear accident by an admin, it seems that removing of the record of it such that it never happened is appropriate. Happy to provide any additional information if needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no revision deletion rationale that allows for block log redaction; in fact, per policy, it's considered abuse of tools to make such a redaction. It's not a badge of shame, many of us have such blocks on our records.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Would not IAR apply here? I fail to see any harm in righting this wrong, for both of us. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleting it would erase a record of an administrative action. If we were to start expunging mistakes, our logs would no longer be accurate records of administrative actions—it would make it much harder to hold administrators to account. I'm not suggesting Cullen needs to be held to any greater account than he is, but as a rule we refuse to do this to avoid compromising the integrity of our logs. Giraffer (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Community consensus determined that revision deletion is only allowed under a very specific set of circumstances, and redacting block logs is not one of them; is actually specifically disallowed. It's not a situation where IAR applies. Why would it be ok to do it for you and none of the other hundreds of misclick blocks out there? The block log is clear that it was an error. No one is going to in good faith believe otherwise.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion: How should we deal with votes submitted before voting period officially began?

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.

---

Note: this is a cross-post from WT:AELECT

Scrutineers have identified that six votes were cast on December 8 during the 10 minutes before the election was to start; two of those votes have been "greyed out" as a result of the voters completing a subsequent ballot, and four have not. The voting period has been posted since October 2, and states that it is December 9 to 15 inclusive. Link to voting list

One of the election clerks has advised the scrutineers that they invited individuals in the English Wikipedia community Discord channel to vote as a test of the system in the 10 minutes before the election was scheduled to begin, and informed the "testers" that those votes would be included in the final count. While the scrutineers have no concerns with the concept of "test" votes occurring during this period (to be replaced with proper votes during the official voting period), there is no precedent within the Wikimedia system to accept votes cast before the official voting period.

The question is, what should be done about these "test" votes that a very limited group of voters were told would count. Options are:

• Striking them
• Asking the four voters involved to please re-vote during the scheduled election (re-voting has the effect of "greying out" the original vote so it will not be counted)
• Allowing them to stand and to count them.

We seek the opinion of the community in this matter. This is being cross-posted to WP:AN. The four individuals whose votes are in question will be notified of this discussion.

Risker (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC) (writing on behalf of the scrutineers)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Discussion: How should we deal with votes submitted before voting period officially began?

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.

~2025-37905-19

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.

---

~2025-37905-19 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) has been discussing a topic at Talk:Your Lie in April for almost a week now concerning what constitutes a "literal translation", a concept for which they seem to have a particular definition and appears eager to uphold.[23][24] As can be seen on the talk page, I provided them an explicit definition of the term from Cambridge,[25] which the user simply dismissed, arguing that this definition corresponds to a different concept (repeating the same thing over and over again).[26][27][28] On their talk page, I asked them, since they refuse to back up their own definition of the term with any sources, to simply leave the discussion.[29] The user declined to comply and chose to maintain their behavior.[30] I feel like I could just let them continue to reply and ignore their answers, but I'm concerned that the user might think that their final word decides the course of action to take on this issue and proceed to edit the article based on their own vision. Given that so far it's basically just this user and me (and perhaps another editor who also dismissed his reasoning),[31] I feel it is best to seek a third opinion before this drags on any longer. Xexerss (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Xexerss The typical venue for requesting a third opinion is Wikipedia:Third opinion (aka "3O"). However, it looks like you've already gotten a third opinion here from @Crestfalling. Also, I think you meant to post this to ANI, not AN (at least, that's the notification you gave this TA). Anyhow, I have partially blocked them from that talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.