Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, (un)deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{subst:RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	12	136	148
TfD	1	0	2	13	16
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	22	29	16	67
RfD	0	0	0	44	44
AfD	0	0	0	16	16

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 12 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 15 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 12 sockpuppet investigations
• 50 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 20 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 47 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

RfC closure review request at Talk:La_France_Insoumise#RFC, 2nd edition in light of the reclassification of the Minister of the interior.

La France Insoumise (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

User requesting review: Friniate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 16:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified: User_talk:S_Marshall#Challenge_to_RfC_closure

Reasoning: Good evening to everyone. I'm writing here because I'd like to challenge this closure made by a non-admin at La France Insoumise. I think that this closure was 1. first of all unnecessary 2. it was much more a reflection of the personal opinion of the closer rather than a reasonable summation of the discussion based on existing policies and the available sources and 3. general policies were apparently not sufficiently taken into account. [Note: the template doesn't work properly and it doesn't allow me to add the full rationale. I'm writing it below in the discussion section, I'm sorry for its length but the matter is complicated].

Closer (S_Marshall)

Most of this user's points are made in the discussion section, so I've replied there.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• After nearly three weeks of this the number of uninvolved sysops who've expressed a position about this close is zero. (Spartaz has participated but only to say that he's unwilling to read this much text.) If you're an uninvolved sysop reading this with the intent of closing it, then please could you !vote instead? If you do, please say how you feel it should have been closed.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Non-participants (La France Insoumise)

• I had a look and the sources are fine. I guess that makes me a weak overturn on the basis that I object to the category-to-subset construction for describing politics and think that, in this case, that looks like WP:SYNTH to resolve some sources call it left and others far-left. It should have been considered that the sources describing the party as "left" were not contradicting sources calling it far-left. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Would I be right in thinking this means "overturn to far left"?—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  yea Simonm223 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @S_Marshall My objection is that Wikipedia incorrectly uses the logically fallacious set-to-subset construction on a lot of political articles. When reliable sources exist for the sub-set we should not be using the broader set unless reliable sources that explicitly distinguish between the set and the sub-set in the context of that political subject exist. Otherwise we're engaging in WP:SYNTH by suggesting that the subset does not fully overlap with its parent set. I see this more often with right vs far-right because far-left people tend not to be afraid that people will associate them with Nazis, unlike the far-right, but it's no more logical when we do this with left vs far-left. Every far-left political subject is also a left-wing political subject. I would suggest that a concern over pervasive WP:SYNTH in articles about extreme politics is not a trivially dismissed objection. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 I partly agree with you, in the sense that we should use the most accurate position (obviously according to RS on the subject). That's why I argued for using "radical right" for Reform and "radical left" here (once we will have an article to link to). But that would mean to exclude both "left" AND "far left". If we think that for Reform "right to far right" Is a good proxy for "radical right", until we fix Radical right (Europe), I think that we can say the same for "left to far left" as a proxy for "radical left". --Friniate ✉ 05:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's true that "left wing" includes the far left. But where some sources call a political party "far left", and others call it "left wing", I do not think it correct for us to treat the two terms as interchangeable. And I do not accept that WP:SYNTH means we should treat those two terms as interchangeable. I'm afraid that my position is that this whole line of argument is so untenable that it should be disregarded.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  You seem to be ignoring that this set-to-subset construction is making inferences about what a source said that are absent from the source by the nature of the construction. It's entirely SYNTH. It's just convenient SYNTH for a lot of people who want to feel like their politics are centrist in some way. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. @S Marshall, I respect that you are standing by your close, but you have at least four editors here who have given legitimate criticism of said close. Proclaiming that they should all be disregarded in favour of your view violates WP:SUPERVOTE, as was stated below in this thread. 11WB 💬 14:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  As you say, I am standing by my close. With all due respect for Simonm223, a normally-sensible editor, the position he takes in this case isn't tenable. Neither you nor Katzrockso have been able to specify what you want to overturn to--all we've got to work with is that you want to amend the closing statement to omit mention of an essay that you dislike. Katzrockso wants a complete mulligan on the close. Friniate wants to revert the close and do nothing else, because he's got the article reading the way he likes it since the discussion ended. I can't see the Administrator's Noticeboard being willing to tolerate that.

What this close review needs is a clear statement of how someone (anyone!) thinks I ought to have closed it.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, so an admin should forgo consensus in favour of your view. That's the definition of a supervote. We're not obligated to give a line by line break down on what should happen next. In fact, this is now beyond our control, it is for somebody to determine the consensus here and move forward with that as is appropriate. 11WB 💬 15:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Amend closing statement (edit: or overturn): I agree with others here about the wall of text, this posting is far too long for reasonable analysis to take place. I've read parts of the RfC, the closing statement and the first paragraph from the appellant for my own conclusion here.

Unfortunately, whilst @S Marshall often does make exceptional RfC closes, this one fell short. Specifically they said: "But they do not have to use the sources' wording, and often they shouldn't", in regards to how they should be referred to, citing WP:OUROWNWORDS. This is an essay, and is not based in PAG, which a contentious RfC of this nature needs. Secondly, we cannot apply "our own words" to an absolute political descriptive such as "left wing" or "far-left". These are in-effect, labels. Labels cannot be summarised using other words. If reliable sources, in majority, describe a political party as something, Wikipedia needs to use that descriptor. Otherwise we run afoul of the appellants second point: applying our own opinion over what is stated in reliable sources.

This does not require an overturn, it simply requires an amended statement based on actual policy, rather than essays, which are not. 11WB (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've skimmed part of @Friniate's lengthy post below. There is merit to their concerns here. "Weighing the sources, I give greater weight to the scholarly and academic ones, and less weight to the press." If the "press" sources are reliable, equal weight should be given, especially as this isn't a medical article subject to WP:MEDRS. @Friniate's point on not requiring a close doesn't hold water, as this was a formal RfC. The question becomes: should the RfC have been opened in the first place?

Regardless, if an overturn is really considered necessary by others, I won't oppose that. A rewrite would be simpler in practice however. 11WB (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Academic sources should be given more weight. That is existing policy, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BESTSOURCES. Katzrockso (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

BESTSOURCES doesn't state academic sources specifically. It does say: 'best respected and most authoritative reliable sources'. I would consider The Times to qualify that, as an example. Regarding SCHOLARSHIP, that again doesn't give priority to academic sources. 11WB (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. The idea that all reliable sources should receive equal weight (or even that all reliable sources are of the same reliability) finds no support in Wikipedia P&G. Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You left out the rest of the paragraph. We disagree. I'm happy to leave it there. 11WB (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Having just re-read that quoted line, it still doesn't mention giving extra weight to academic sources. It just says their "usually the most reliable. Anyway, I've said my piece here. Thanks for bringing this up, never hurts to review policies or guidelines. 11WB (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

On the part of 11WB's position that I reduce to "press sources should get the same weight as scholarly ones", I disagree and join issue with them. This position is wrong, and particularly wrong when it comes to labels like "far left".

On the part of 11WB's position that I reduce to "when making a political label we should crib other people's wording rather than writing our own", I also disagree and join issue with them. Our articles should mean what the sources mean, but they should not say what the sources say in the source's own words, except when we're inserting an attributed quote.—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to restate here that we cannot paraphrase absolute labels such as "far left". I've already addressed the first point, of which it is not written in any linked policy or guideline to give weight to academic sources over non-academic reliable sources. You're welcome to disagree, but on that point your closing statement does qualify the second bullet point the appellant made. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@11WB If you want, you can read this summary of my most important points. --Friniate ✉ 16:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(by the way, I actually agree to give more weight to scholarly sources as it's usually done, also because most sources from news organisations use these labels only in passing and per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS we shouldn't give them too much weight. What I'm arguing is that although this principle was stated in the rationale at one point, unfortunately it was not followed through in the rest of the rationale and in the closure). --Friniate ✉ 16:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that. I respect that you are quite new to Wikipedia and to basically challenge a veteran editor's close is bold. I agree with the second point you made and partially with the third point (I refer to your opening paragraph at the top of this thread). I don't think the walls of text in the discussion section below have helped your case. Editors are able to access the RfC and come to their own conclusions, without the need for a step by step breakdown. 11WB (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I will say, entirely notwithstanding my perennial gripe on set-to-subset synth, we should be giving preferred weight to academic sources. Always. IMO we should not use newspaper articles at all when academic works cover the same topics. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Vacate and allow another editor to reclose (I don't have a particular opinion on how it should be closed, other than that the current close is inadequate). I don't find the claims that the closer is involved/biased/etc to be convincing in the slightest. Similarly, I dismiss the claim that the discussion didn't need a closure (an editor listing it at WP:CR is a bona fide reason it needs to be closed).
  

However, there are some issues I find with the close. It appears to me that the closer, instead of evaluating the arguments in the discussion, substituted a weighted evaluation of the views of the participants of the discussions with his own personal evaluation of the sources. Statements like I have therefore given less weight to the opinions of both the more right-wing and the more left-wing political organs, and leant more heavily on the less politically aligned sources and on the official position of the French authorities raise concern. I don't see any discussion of whether sources are left-wing or right-wing in the discussion, so it's unclear why the closer is bringing up this in the close. Moreover, I don't know why the closer himself is the one conducting the analysis of sources, which is precisely what the participants of the discussion should be doing. The source review by Friniate should only be given as much weight as participants in the discussion gave it.

I also agree with 11WB's point about WP:OUROWNWORDS. That is about rewriting entire sentences and paragraphs of prose, not contentious labels. MOS:LABEL establishes the fact that when labels that categorize a person/group are contested, it is important to rely on sources that explicitly support the label. Moreover, it doesn't make sense to say that editors can "summarize" a label in WP:OUROWNWORDS.Katzrockso (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 (Despite our disagreement on academic versus press weight, I agree with everything above.) 11WB (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Closers have to do more than evaluate the discussion in front of them. We also have to make sure that what people say in this discussion complies with the global consensus in policies and guidelines. In particular, checking core content policies such as WP:NPOV isn't optional. The closer has to scrupulously apply NPOV, no matter what the !voters in this RfC said, and no matter whether or not the !voters in this RfC discussed it at all. I am not sure what the outcome of this review will be, but I am 100% confident that administrators on this noticeboard will agree with me that the closer, as well as the !voters, must ensure that the decision is NPOV.

Editors more familiar with English-language sources will know how sources like Fox News and the Trump administration try to shift the Overton window. I've seen Trump suggest that the BBC is far left. I've seen Ben Shapiro try to say that Andrew Neil is far left. The fact that a right wing source calls an organization "far left" doesn't make it true. If we want to know whether an organization is "far left", our best sources are the ones with a reputation for neutrality.

But on the question of "what's the difference between left wing, far left, radical left, and populist left", that is for local consensus to decide. In other words if one source says "far left" and another source says "radical left" but local consensus wants "populist left", then the local consensus is free to make that decision.

This is what I mean by using our own words. The sources decide whether the organization is left wing or far left, but we get to decide how to phrase it.

The closer decides how much weight to give each person. With something like a source review table, even if the debate participants act like it doesn't exist, the closer can still decide to weight it highly. You can say I shouldn't have weighted it highly, but to claim that I'm not allowed to weight it highly unless the participants do is untenable.

Closers aren't just the note-takers at the meeting doing whatever the meeting resolves. They're the backstop that makes sure policy is strictly followed, and re-weights !votes until policy is strictly followed. It's a key duty of the role.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

OUROWNWORDS is not a policy or guideline and should not have been cited in a contentious RfC closing statement. You've closed some very difficult RfCs, but this one, as is evident by the participation here so far, did not meet the expected standard. 11WB (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm deeply confused now. You've said you endorse the outcome but you want the closing statement rewritten to omit mention of one essay to which you object on the grounds that it isn't a policy or guideline and therefore shouldn't be talked about.

I thought you wanted me to rewrite the close to say something like: No consensus. Therefore we restore the pre-edit war version but encourage further discussion in search of wording that more accurately reflects the sources, so functionally the same outcome. Was I wrong?—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually said: "Regardless, if an overturn is really considered necessary by others, I won't oppose that. A rewrite would be simpler in practice however." (After @Katzrockso left their formal !vote, I added to my own !vote to reflect this.) 11WB (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I was trying to extract the outcome that you think is right, rather than what you wouldn't object to if others insisted. As far as I can tell what you think is right is to rewrite the existing close to omit mention of the esaay to which you have objected at such length.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, among other things. It would probably be simpler to vacate the close as was suggested above, and allow another editor to rewrite the closing statement. 11WB (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to do that on the basis of the discussion so far. Simonm223's position, that left wing includes far left so I should have closed as far left, isn't one that any reviewing sysop will need to spend much time thinking about. Katzrockso and you want the close vacated rather than overturned, because as both of you say quite clearly, you don't object to the outcome, you just quibble my wording.

But one thing you do not get to do, 11WB, is to say "someone else other than you needs to close this." Particularly where you won't say what the outcome should have been or what wording should have been used. This is Wikipedia where you have to play the ball, not the man. You're expected to attack the close, not the closer. And you certainly don't get to pick and choose your closer. Please either say clearly and positively what words the close should have used, or else withdraw from this discussion.

Whatever alternative wording you suggest, I pledge to consider objectively and in good faith.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no need for the condescension. I will not engage with that. Editors have a choice to give their opinions here, which I did, obligations beyond that are also optional. I've given my reasoning quite clearly. It's down to whoever closes this to decide the best course of action. 11WB (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between weighting votes based on their adherence to policy, as well as discarding non-policy based votes, and creating a wholly original analysis of the sources that isn't found in the discussion. It is almost the definition of a WP:SUPERVOTE. Katzrockso (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close, on the grounds that the appeal is too long for editors to reasonably review the closure. BilledMammal (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I oppose this. Whilst it may true that the discussion section consists of walls of text, all the relevant information is available by viewing the provided links. 11WB 💬 09:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I certainly didn't read the appeal myself, just the entire RFC. I didn't even read the condensed version the appellant gave me because it was still too long. Katzrockso (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  A procedural close doesn't mean this appeal fails. It would mean that you can restart it, stating your complaints clearly and succinctly enough that there's some prospect of uninvolved sysops reading them. I think that outcome would have a lot to recommend it.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Good close, far more considered and careful than the RfC question itself. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (La France Insoumise)

First of all: The very necessity of a formal closure in this context is at least questionable. The RfC was opened on 19th February because some users disagreed with the label put in the parameter |political position in the Template:Infobox political party of La France Insoumise. The label there was historically only "left-wing". Then these users, without doing a proper source review, opened this RfC and many !votes flocked, in some cases without even stated reasons to justify them. As the RfC was still taking place, some users tried to change the label in the article. There was a bit of edit-warring until on 24th March it finally stabilized on "left to far-left". In the meanwhile also the source review that I started had headed towards that solution and since then (in more than 3 months!) nobody except the closer argued against this solution, which is, as far as I'm aware, considered acceptable (at least as a compromise) by most, if not all, the people who took part to the discussion. Therefore a consensus, although implicit, had already been reached. I agree with WP:NACRFC (an essay specifically covering non-admin closures like this one) when it states that Unlike other discussions on Wikipedia, RfCs do not require a formal closure, and doing so may often be unnecessary or even counterproductive. Editors should assess whether the closure is needed at all, or whether the discussion has come to a natural conclusion on its own, and reached a consensus which is self-evident to those involved, rendering a closure moot, and an inaccurate closure unnecessarily problematic.. Even according to the general policy If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance. Ok, the matter was contentious, but, like it or not, an implicit consensus had already been reached between the participants. So, what's the need for an outside intervention that has only complicated things? Third-party interventions are supposed to solve conundrums, not to create them.
Secondly, I think that the closure is essentially based on the closer's personal opinion rather than on a summation of the discussion:

• First of all, according to the closer we should now disregard the implict consensus on "left to far left" and start a new discussion to decide between "left-wing populist" and "far-left". There are two problems with this:

1. Both "Left-wing" and "left to far left" have been arbitrarily excluded as possible outcomes of the RfC. The rationale given for this was "left wing" does seem to be a milquetoast and anodyne phrase for a party that is (i.e. the sources assess as) this far left. The rationale was repeated in his talk page (I think that from the sources, "left wing" is too milquetoast and anodyne for this party). This rationale reflects just the closer's personal opinion. It's true, there were some people arguing for excluding "left-wing", but they were doing it for different reasons: BrownBowler and PalleyCov2030 argued that we should follow the official classification by the French Ministry (which by the way is "extreme gauche"), Wikieditor662 argued that we should use only "far-left" because that label is used by many news organisations, Jeppiz argued we should follow the official classification and that left-wing is not used by RSs. But then there were also many other users who opposed this idea like Eleventh1, GlowstoneUnknown and Helper201, all arguing that "left-wing" is consistently used by RS to describe the party. Polygnotus argued that before excluding "left-wing" we should make a thorough source review. Venis067067067 and Hplotter initially opposed the inclusion of "left-wing", but then explicitly agreed on "left to far left" as an acceptable compromise (although Hplotter still favoured "radical left to far left"). As you can see, nobody used as a rationale that left-wing is "milquetoast and anodyne" (whatever it means...). You could now say, ok, but still there is the first part of the rationale, most scholarly sources will use "far-left" as the closer claimed, right? Unfortunately, that's not the case. Among the scholarly sources that talked in lenght about both LFI and its political position, only 1 of them (out of 18) used "far left" and 2 used "left-wing". Only including passing comments (but we shouldn't do that per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) we get to 13 sources using "far left" against 9 using "left-wing" (out of 78 reviewed sources talking about LFI's political position and excluding those that used multiple labels). So, even the first part of the rationale, even if one participant (Jeppiz) at least made that argument, seems to be insufficiently accounted for since the closer didn't explain why he basically discarded the opinions of the 3 (4 including me after the source review) users opposing this evaluation, he ignored the results of the source review and how did he jump to the conclusion that the sources viewed LFI only as a far left party.
2. But the situation gets worse with the proposal of including also "left-wing populist" as one of the two possible political positions. As you can see from the discussion literally nobody expressed this position during the discussion. The closest thing was Eleventh1 that said La France Insoumise is consistently described as left-wing, with 'populist' or 'populism' being the most common additional terms used, but he was arguing for including "left-wing" as the political position, not "left-wing populis". And nobody made this proposal for a very simple reason: Left-wing populism is an ideology, not a political position on the left-right axis. When i asked to the closer the reason why he included it as one of the possibility he just said that I fail to see the distinction between "ideology" and "political position". But if he fails to see it, then it's just his problem. He can't just impose his idea on the community forcing other users to start a discussion about it even if nobody agreed with him. But there's more, the RfC was about a parameter in the infobox which is called |position. For the ideologies there's different parameter called (who would guess it) |ideologies. So this idea that ideologies are something different from political positions was not just a bizarre thing made up by the participants to the RfC, but an established consensus among the Wikipedia community at least since 8 October 2009 when the parameter was added to the infobox for the first time. If he doesn't agree with that it's fine, but he should open a new discussion and find a new consensus for his idea, not just force his opinion on the community through RfC's closures (by the way, this idea is not shared even by scholarly sources that studied populism among parties across the entire left-right spectrum, see for example here or here [ all revolutionary, communist, socialist, social-democratic, and radical-leftist projects can employ and adopt a populist pattern as long as they predominantly pit “the people” against “the elite.]).

• Then, I think that the closer's opinion was unduly reflected also by the rationale given to exclude "radical left" from the outcomes. In the closure he didn't even give a reason, he simply stated: The terms "radical left" and "extreme left" are not borne out. Now, it's true that the source review shows that "extreme left" is very rarely used among scholarly sources and therefore I'd understand why he didn't feel the need to provide arguments. But the same can't be said for "radical left", quite the opposite in fact. According to the source review, "radical left" is by far the most used descriptor by scholarly sources (it's used by 15 out of 18 sources talking in length about LFI's political position - I'm excluding the sources using "left-wing populist" since as we have seen it's an ideology - and by 54 out of 78 sources including also passing comments). During the discussion there were 2 users arguing for "radical left" (Hplotter and me) and one user arguing against it (GlowstoneUnknown) because he thought that it wasn't "well-defined" (even if he agreed that the party could be described as such). So, I'd say that you need to motivate the exclusion of the most used descriptor for the party's political position among scholarly sources. He tried to do that in his talk page, where he stated that the term is obfuscatory rather than illuminating for a general reader because 1. it isn't a well-defined phenomenon 2. it doesn't have an article. Now, in the RfC there was consensus on the second reason, since both people arguing for radical left agreed that we shouldn't link it in the infobox until we don't have an article about it. But the first reason shows again that the closer simply choose to ignore the source review in which I included a "definition" column for the exact reason of being sure that it was clear what each author meant by using each label. When I made this argument on the closer's talk page he didn't even answer. By the way, this idea of an absence of definitional consensus is even contradicted by a tertiary source (already present in the source review), Gomez and Ramiro 2023, who wrote In the specialized academic literature, there is a consensus as to the definition of the Radical Left party family and the use of the term ‘radical left’ to refer to these parties (March 2011).

The third reason why I challenge this closure is that I think that the closer didn't sufficiently take into account Wikipedia's policies. I'm referring in particular to the discussion on whether we should take into account the official classification of the French Ministry or not (just to avoid misunderstandings: it was a classification given by the Ministry - which of course is led by politicians who are politically against LFI - and that the Council of State - an independent body - deemed as "not blatantly wrong"). Both users in favour of using it (BrownBowler) and users opposing its usage (me) agree that it is a primary source. Only Hplotter argued that once a newspaper reported the decision, then it wasn't a primary source anymore. Now, what is a primary source and how we should use it, it's something that the community wrote long ago in general policies and therefore it's not something subject to local consensus. Now, regarding the claim that the classification by the Ministry is not a primary source because it was reported by newspapers, I'd say that Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#How_to_classify_a_source makes it very clear that primary sources don't magically become secondary just because newspapers report what they say. If the newspaper gives an interpretation of the primary source then the newspaper is a secondary source, but the original classification remains primary. Regarding the claim by BrownBowler that primary sources could be freely used as long as there is not OR, that's true if I write in an article "The French Ministry classified LFI as extreme left<ref>Primary source</ref>", but this is something very different from saying in wikivoice "LFI is extreme left<ref>Primary source</ref>". Per WP:PRIMARY we shouldn't give undue weight to primary sources (even more if, as in this case, there's a risk of a conflict of interest, that was the point raised by GlowstoneUnknown) and according to WP:BESTSOURCES we should primarily rely on independent authoritative secondary sources and not on primary ones. Now, the closer doesn't seem to have taken into account these arguments. He simply said that I have therefore given less weight to the opinions of both the more right-wing and the more left-wing political organs, and leant more heavily on the less politically aligned sources and on the official position of the French authorities. That's quite frankly the contrary of what the general policies mandate, and even if it was an opinion shared by a majority of the participants to the RfC, per WP:NHC Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes. When I asked him why he did that on his talk page, he didn't even answer.
Finally, there'd probably be a fourth point if Template:RfC closure review banner didn't ban the user requesting a review from making accusations of bias towards the closer. So let's only say that given the participation of the closer to this RfC about Reform's political position in which he made points very similar to the ones made in the closure about LFI (but with opposite conclusions), I think that his lack of involvement is at least debatable and that even if he felt the urge of giving a formal closure to a discussion not needing it, it'd have been more wise to follow the advice of WP:NACINV about situations in which there may be an appearance of impropriety.
I'll let the admins decide what's the best course forward. In my opinion we could just delete the closure and leave everything as it was. Alternatively IMHO there should be a closure that takes into account general policies and the sources brought up during the discussion and that doesn't bring forward options never discussed by any of the participants to the RfC.--Friniate ✉ 16:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closer: This dispute is about how we characterise La France Insoumise, a French political party, in the infobox. The party is left-wing and at issue is what adjective if any to use before "left".

I'll deal with each of Friniate's points in the order that he raises them:

Complaint 1

Q: Was a formal close unnecessary?

A: When someone writes a 2,400 word essay arguing with the close, we're clearly dealing with a contentious matter. In this case the dispute is about both modern-day politics and infoboxes and it had been languishing unclosed at WP:CR for several yonks.

Complaint 2 (1)

Q: Was the close based on my personal opinion?

A: No. I'm both disinterested and uninterested in La France Insoumise, and in French politics in general, and I have no personal opinion about either.

Complaint 2 (1)(1)

Q: Was it "arbitrary" to exclude "left-wing" from the possible outcomes?

A: No. Nobody !voted for "left-wing" alone, although one editor (Helper201) !voted for it as one of his possible outcomes.

Q: Was it "arbitrary" to exclude "left-wing to far left" from the possible outcomes?

A: No. As Vacant0 noted during the debate, the problem with that wording is that it's unsourced. In one of his many contributions to that debate, Friniate agreed that it would be OR to say "left-wing to far left".

Complaint 2 (1)(2)

Q: Was it "arbitrary" to include "left-wing populist" as a possible outcome?

A: No. Friniate's own table of sources shows that in academic and scholarly sources, it's the second-most popular descriptor for the party after "radical left".

Complaint 3 (1)

Q: Given that, why did I exclude "radical left"?

A: We have an article on left-wing populism, but radical left is a disambiguation page. I simply preferred the phrasing that could be wikilinked.

Complaint 3 (2)

Q: Did I give too much weight to the French Ministry's description?

A: In the circumstances, I don't think so, but reasonable people could differ from me about that of course.

I leave it to the community to decide whether I owe Friniate an apology for not addressing this specific point in the lengthy screed he posted on my talk page.

Complaint 4

Q: Am I biased about this given my participation, in January this year, in a different RfC about a political party in a different country?

A: No, of course not. That's ridiculous.

I look forward to this review with some interest.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you are talking about my personal opinion, I'll answer only to that: yes, and I said that instead of writing "left to far left" it was better to write "left/far left", I never argued that we should keep only "far left", come on... I'm not sure if I'm allowed to answer also to the other points, let me know if I'm allowed to do that.--Friniate ✉ 17:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no rule against replying to everything I say, in as much detail as you like.

But please, consider this: The reviewers here are volunteers. They have limited patience. Each word that you type uses up a little bit more of that patience.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@S Marshall Thanks, I've already answered in the summary below in practice. Briefly:

• "Left-wing populist" was included in the source review only for transparency to clarify to the reader why I didn't count many instances of "left-wing" as supporting "left-wing" as a political position (because they were followed by "populist" and therefore they were indicating an ideology). That didn't mean in any way that I meant that "left-wing populist" was anything but an ideology and nobody said that during the discussion.
• Regarding "radical left", that's not the reason that you wrote in the closure though. If you had written that as rationale, I'd have had no objection.

--Friniate ✉ 12:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Friniate can you try to condense this or summarize somewhat? Nobody wants to read a massive WP:WALLOFTEXT Katzrockso (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso I'll try, but please bear in mind that I had to answer to multiple claims made in the closure and also to summarize the entire discussion.

So,

• I argue that a formal closure was not needed to begin with. Although I agree that the matter is contentious, the actual label ("left to far left") it's being used since more than 3 months and since then nobody changed it in the article or complained about it in the discussion, whereas multiple users in the RfC agreed that it was an acceptable compromise (either as "left to far left" or in the variation "left/far left")
• I argue that the closure is influenced too much by the personal views of the closer:

1. He said that we should open a discussion to choose between "far left" and "left-wing populist", arguing that "left-wing" was not represented enough among RS in order to include it in the infobox (even as a descriptor alongside far left). This is clearly contradicted by the source review that showed that "far left" is less used than left-wing among scholarly sources that were classified as "on topic" (i.e. sources talking at length both about LFI and its political position), and only slightly more used than "left-wing" including passing comments. Moreover, only one user used this argument during the entire discussion (other 4 users opposed it and two users accepted "left to far left" as an acceptable compromise). On the other side, "left-wing populist" is simply not a political position and nobody argued for its inclusion during the discussion (it's true that I included it in the source review, but as I said I made it only for transparency). The fact that we should distinguish ideologies from political positions on the left-right axis in infoboxes is established community consensus since at least 2009.
2. In the closure he wrote that "radical left" should be excluded because is "not borne out". This is clearly contradicted by the source review which shows that it's by far the most used descriptor for LFI's political position (although I agree that at the moment we shouldn't be using it since there is no article about it, but that's not what it was written in the closure)

• He wrote that among the sources to which he has given more weight there is the official classification of the French Ministry. As I showed above, this is a primary source and it should be treated accordingly, our policies mandate that we should use primarily secondary sources and we should avoid giving too much weight to primary sources.

I'm asking to remove this closure or alternatively to rewrite it in order to address these issues. --Friniate ✉ 19:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If I were a betting person, I'd say that this is going to close with very limited external input with no consensus to do anything. At this point, the advice to open a new discussion to differentiate between the two options in the close looks like the inevitable next step. Please consider the impact of walls of text and bludgeoning discussions on the interest of other users to get involved. They are a better tactic when you already got your way rather than overturning an existing outcome that you disagree with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"Far-left" is a subset of "left" so I guess the key question an RfC should answer is whether there is appropriate and uncontradicted sourcing for "far-left". The category-to-subset thing comes up far more often about far-right groups than far-left groups (largely because far-left groups are generally less likely to object to the "far" part) but the principle underlying it is the same. What do the sources say? Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No idea, I don't have an opinion on the actual RFC. I'm just flagging to the OP that they will be sorely disappointed if they expect to move the dial while bludgeoning the conversation with wallsoftext. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

We have the benefit of a very helpful table from Friniate that tells us what the sources say. It's at the bottom of the discussion we're reviewing.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Unban request from Tiipu

From User_talk:Tiipu#Unblock Request 2

Dear Wikipedia administrators, I am writing to request for another look at my case and a chance to be unblocked (I apologise in advance for the long read. I wanted to make sure I it was as readable as possible so I wrote this by hand instead of relying on an LLM input.). Firstly, I think it is important to construct a timeline of my History at Wikipedia to keep everything clear:

1. The account @Tiipu was created on the 22nd of October, 2024.

2. Then, after editing for a few months on the account @Tiipu, I created the account @GtAM6 on 12th of January 2025.

3. When I got banned for sockpuppetry as a result of making the @GtAM6 account, I created the account @Longsword4 on 21st of February 2025 in order to circumvent the block from Wikipedia. This account was then banned by user @Izno on the 5th of March 2025.

4. After this, if I recall correctly, I spent a couple of weeks trying other methods to get past the ban by trying to edit anonymously and making new accounts however as my IP was associated with those banned accounts I was automatically forbidden from editing.

5. Realising that these methods were not working I tried to get my account unbanned. I appealed for the first time on the 27th of March 2025 via a ticket on UTRS.

6. This appeal was declined and I was suggested I follow the Wikipedia Standard Offer (i.e. Make a new account, make 500 constructive edits on Wikimedia related projects and wait at least 6 months.) and then re-appeal.

7. After creating my temporary account @Greatswrd on the same day (27th of March 2025), I got to work, initially editing on WikiBooks. However I quickly shifted to Wikimedia Commons where the bulk of my work is now situated.

8. After editing for 6 months, I accumulated approximately 800 constructive edits on the account, @Greatswrd. I re-appealed my ban on the 27th of September 2025, exactly 6 months after my first appeal.

9. I was declined again because I failed to follow the rules of not editing English Wikipedia. This was a mishap on my part as I edited talk pages to suggest improvements or on my own user page. While I never edited articles themselves nor anything on the main space, I understand that it technically went against what was instructed of me. I was then instructed to follow another term of the Wikipedia Standard offer, but to "unambiguously follow it" for it was my best chance.

10. So I took to Wikimedia commons again and begun editing and uploading media. I have now currently been doing this for nearly the last 9 months. I now have around 2500 edits on Wikimedia Commons (on the account, @Greatswrd).

11. I begun writing this appeal on the 21st of June 2026 however I forgot to sign out of this account and accidently made an edit on Wikimedia Commons. I understand that it may look like me trying to avoid my block again however this was a mistake on my part again and due to negligence. I can assure this wont happen again. This was a one time edit I did without knowing and I apologise.

I have now been away from English Wikipedia for nearly 15 months (collectively). 15 months is a long time and it allowed me to reflect on many things and re-evaluate whether I even wanted to return to Wikipedia. To begin with, I want to make clear that my ban was entirely justified as I explicitly went against Wikipedia's rules. When I made my very first account, @Tiipu, on the 22nd of October, 2024 I was new to Wikipedia and had no clue what I was doing. I made mistakes left right and centre. I would get excited at seeing any sources and hastily make edits, and while I was right a lot of the time, I understand now that being right isn't enough WP:BRIE. I realise now the root of these mistakes stemmed from not bothering with even reading Wikipedia's policies. To change this, in my time away from Wikipedia I made sure to go over some of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:SOCK, WP:CT and WP:EDITWAR. These policies are the reason(s) I was banned in the first place.

After reading WP:SOCK I understood that Sock puppetry is when someone used multiple accounts to mislead other or gain an unfair advantage like voting twice in a discussion. My case of Sockpuppetry was extremely serious as the Admins made use of Checkuser which reserved for only the most extreme cases. After reading WP:CT I realised that many areas or topics in Wikipedia are officially classified as "contentious topics" because they repeatedly cause disputes. When editing these articles its increasingly more important to edit them constructively and carefully. And after reading WP:EDITWAR I understood that edit warring primarily happens when editors keep on reverting/overriding each other's changes on a page instead of resolving the dispute through the talk page. Edit-warring disrupts an article and its stability and prevents editors from reaching consensus. After reading through these policies I was able to understand why they are having a sock (WP:SOCK), not following the guidelines for WP:CT and edit-warring (WP:EDITWAR) causes disruption to Wikipedia and prevents Wikipedia from being cordial professional as it should be.

Wikipedia's Standard offer is 6 months however I intentionally took an extra three months this time around to really reflect and get over the novelty of being able to edit on Wikipedia. I spent these last 9 months accumulating approximately 1700 further edits, with the overwhelmingly large majority of them being constructive edits. Out of all my c. 2500 edits, more than 500 of them have been uploads. One of my most viewed work is a flag of the Bengal Subah which receives approximately 240,000 views monthly (see here). I am also proud to report that in my entire history at Wikimedia Commons I have not been in any edit wars.

An error I was making was wanting to edit everything. This made would often mean I would make hasty edits causing my additions to be poor. This paired with the fact I was in constant edit wars and editing contentious topics meant I was going to get banned sooner or later regardless of whether I had a sock puppet or not. Even though most of my edits were in good faith it didn't make up for the fact that most of my edits went against Wikipedia's guidelines. I would like to take this chance for an Admin to consider giving me a second chance to prove myself to be worthy of editing Wikipedia again. I wholeheartedly accepts my mistakes and accept the fact that my actions undermined Wikipedia's guidelines and made life difficult for other Wikipedians. In my prior appeal I wrote "I know that the people who were affected may not see this however I am sorry for my actions" and I stand by it. Wikipedia should be a friendly and inviting place for everyone.

In reading many of Wikipedia's policies I have understood the issues with things like WP:SOCK, WP:CT and WP:EDITWAR and I will make sure that I don't edit war again and not revert edits. If conflict should arise, I will use talk pages to resolve the issue from now on instead of making new accounts. If I disagree with someone, I will message them at their talk page or the talk page of the article to discuss the issue. If the opposing argument is strong, I will accept the result and will not try to alter the result in any shape or form. I am committed to editing responsibly and transparently using the account @User:Greatswrd from now on. If necessary I don't mind taking on a temporary unban or trial to demonstrate my commitment and earn the trust of the community again. Thank you for your time and consideration.

User is considered WP:3X banned (original block Jan 30, 2025 - strike 2: Longsword4 blocked 4 March 2025. Strike 3: Greatswrd CU-confirmed 28 September 2025). * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unblock with a topic ban from Indian military history. Zalaraz (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock with a one-account restriction. Best to enforce their understanding of what they did wrong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unblock with a topic ban from Indian military history and a one-account restriction, per Zalaraz and LaundryPizza03. While I think it's fair to give this editor another chance, it's best for everyone if it's not in one of the most controversial areas of English Wikipedia, and I'd prefer that there be a review rather than an automatically granted right. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be agreeable in making it about Bengal, per S Marshall. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock, under the condition that they follow the terms suggested by CoffeeCrumbs. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 22:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at this user's problem contributions, I don't think the topic ban should be about Indian military history. I think it should be about Bengal, broadly construed.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you explain? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  On the main and sock accounts, he mainly displays interest in the Bengal Sultanate, the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the Nawabs of Bengal during the Mughal Empire period. There are uploads that I can't see because they've been deleted, but have titles such as File:All_land_controlled_by_the_Bengali_people_throughout_history.jpg, which suggest an interest in Bengali revanchism. You'll be well aware, but it might help others to be reminded, that Modern day Bengal isn't entirely within India. I'm not seeing problematic edits outside the Bengal region.—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then I agree with that. Let me know if you encounter a problematic edit about SASG or IMH outside of Bengal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with single account restriction and TBAN from Bengal, broadly construed. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Unblock everyone can make mistake, from what I saw above they earned another chance but with a TBAN from Bengal and ONE account restriction in place. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support with single account restriction and TBAN from Bengal, as above. Using Greatswrd instead of Tiipu should be fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, but topic-banning someone from their entire nation/region is almost always going to be broader than necessary, so (as ArbCom has suggested) we should consider whether a narrower topic ban would suffice. In my opinion something like "history of Bengal pre-1971" would address all the disruption that's actually occurred while still leaving room for them to edit about the area of the world that they're presumably interested in. If problems spread to adjacent areas, then that's what WP:CT/SA is for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• support with one account restriction and topic ban on "history of bengal pre 1757". I think pre 1757 or 1947 is more appropriate than 1971. Their problematic editing history is mainly in pre 1757 history. Nothing after. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unban with a tban on history of Bengal pre-1765 per above. If unblocked, the closing admin should redirect/merge the history of User:Tiipu to User:Greatswrd. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Community Unblock Appeal from User:Zubarkokar

Hello Administrators!

I am submitting an unblock request after 6 months under "Standard Offer". I was blocked for sock puppetry on my first account User: Muhammad Ahsan2233 but instead of following Wikipedia guide lines, i start creating multiple accounts to avoid my block in that process I created 16 account (which I fully listed and disclosed during the CheckUser review on my talk page) plus I also involved in meatpuppetry i copy source code from wiki fandom and discord history servers and publish on Wikipedia. I was caught each time now I am changed and I see now that I was just wasting the administrators' time and my own.

I realised creating multiple accounts gives unfair advantage to that person in any argument or bypassing previous blocks without accountability this destroyed Wikipedia culture. I do not have access to my first account due to password issue, so I am using this as my only account account. I have been using this account on there platforms like Urdu Wikipedia, where I have made many constructive edits under the same username. I hope this track record shows that I have truly changed. If the block is lifted from me, I will play my positive role in the pages about Pakistan's history.

Copied from User talk:Zubarkokar - there's a lot of discussion on that talk page worth reading here as well. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to appeal on the sock master account? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 22:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

They said they do not have access to [their] first account due to password issue. And this is the account they've been using on the Simple and Urdu Wikipedias. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a topic ban and a one-account restriction on the subject of Indian military history, broadly construed. Given there was some problematic editing in this area originally, the extensive list of recognized sockpuppets were used to continued posting in this area, and that this is now an extended-confirmed restricted topic, I think this is a natural protection for the project. While Zubarkokar is not extended-confirmed and can't make edits in this top anyway for a while, I think it's prudent to have a review rather than it automatically being granted due to the sensitivity of the topic area. I think the one-account restriction is there for obvious reasons. I oppose an unban without these two restrictions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unban. User appears to be unrelated to سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ anyway. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Unban request from MoonknightPP34

From User talk:MoonknightPP34#Unblock request after taking standard offer

Hello to all the community, first of all I would like to thank you for giving me the option of taking the standard offer. Over these past few months I have done a lot of reflecting on my actions, they were silly and as much as I tried to justify them those reasons did not matter and I shouldn't have abused the site and the editors who work tirelessly to make it a safe and enjoyable space for everyone involved and to all of you I would like to apologise. These last 6 months have taught me a lot and I would love the oppurtunity to come back and prove I can be a great editor who follows the rules, follows guidelines and helps to make this site a better place. If you think this is not the right thing and decide to reject my unblock request I completely understand, I will leave it at that, but I would love the oppurtunity to edit like I originally did on this account, by making great edits that further pages and the site. I promise not to cause any trouble or do anything stupid that makes anyone else's lives more difficult. I would again like to apologise for the stupid choices I have made the past couple years with these accounts and would like to apologise again to the editors of this site for taking time out of their days to police my actions, I sincerely apologise for the trouble and stress caused. I hope we can all move past this and allow edits to be our focus. Thank you for your time and consideration. MoonknightPP34 (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Prior failed appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive376#WP:3X ban appeal for User:MoonknightPP34 * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, assuming no additional new information comes to light. As I said back in December, I thought it was crucial that the editor show self-regulation and take the WP:OFFER and that I'd likely support the unblock in six months. They followed the SO as far as I can tell, the red flags I referenced at the time aren't in the request, I think another chance is fair at this point. Hopefully it goes without saying that Moonknight should be limited to a single account. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Clearly someone who passionately wants to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope we can come up with a route back.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, on the condition that they receive experience on how to contribute edits to mainspace from a mentorship. Their older talk page highlights issues with adding unsourced claims to articles. This is problematic. Unfortunately, there are no global contributions from the past 6 months to determine if they can edit responsibly. They have just under 2000 edits across their accounts, which means there will be a heavy learning curve if allowed to jump straight back into editing without some form of insurance on their improvement. Fulfilling the SO is a good start. (It would also be good to tell the truth in any situation, which they failed to do here). My advice is to have a read of WP:RS and H:YFA, and consider contacting somebody at WP:AAU. 11WB (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I'm also worried about sourcing, since it's been a consistent problem throughout all their accounts from 2022 to 2025. [1][2][3][4][5]

I wonder if a mainspace block might be an idea, until they've had enough accepted edit requests/drafts - unless someone else has a better suggestion? That or a committed mentor who is happy to accept that level of oversight, since sourcing is so integral to editing it'll affect the majority of their work.

I really want to support this appeal, but three years of problematic sourcing concerns me & I'd like some sort of guardrails in place, if possible. I realise that a mainspace block is quite severe though, so I'm open to other suggestions. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I find that mainspace blocks often discourage people from the core of encyclopedia-building without giving them great tools to learn. What about a custom restriction like Every factual assertion in an edit MoonknightPP34 makes—either a new assertion or a change to an existing one—must be accompanied by a citation. If the assertion is verified by a citation already present, or is summarizing information found elsewhere in the same article, this should be indicated in the edit summary, e.g. 'corrected date per cited source' or 'added population to infobox per body of article'. I would also support some kind of mentorship if someone's willing to volunteer, in lieu of such a restriction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Restored from archive. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 00:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Support unban, if it is accompanied by a restriction such as the one Tamzin mentions, to deal with the problems with sourcing that this user has had in the past. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment I'd be happy to field any questions MoonknightPP34 has about sourcing or other issues; I'm not up for preemptively monitoring their edits with any consistency. Not sure what else a mentor might do here Rusalkii (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Following on from request: Please reconsider my topic ban

The community agreed today to remove my topic ban, and replaced it with a single article and associated talk page block. I had no idea this would result in me being unable to use the library. I have used this valuable resource quite a bit, to improve articles, including on an article I got to good article status. I really do feel I can be trusted, without having any bans or blocks. Could the community consider this, so I have better access to quality sources? I'm sorry to take more of your time but I didn't understand this would happen. LateFatherKarma (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that this was meant to be a lessening of restrictions rather than imposing additional ones, I don't see why the block couldn't be lifted and you trusted to self-enforce your ban from the page in the same way the previous tban was.

Courtesy ping participants in previous discussion @S Marshall @Rsjaffe @Newslinger @The Bushranger Rusalkii (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Support unblock. Losing access to The Wikipedia Library is definitely an unfortunate side effect of the partial block that I did not consider in the previous discussion. It has been more than six months since LateFatherKarma was unblocked, and they have made a considerable amount of constructive content contributions since then, so I believe an unblock can be granted via the standard offer without needing any additional restrictions. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely support unblock and then have topic ban from the page without accompanying partial blocks. I believe @The Bushranger placed the block so would rather they be the one to undo it if they agree, as this is not a dire emergency and can wait a few hours. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Support replacing the blocks with a topic ban per the above. It's a shame that the Wikipedia Library access is so binary but addressing that issue is far more complicated than simply trusting LateFatherKarma in the same way we've been trusting them for the past six and bit months. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Absolutely, in the circumstances this is right.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma, you can simply contact TWL to get access in this kind of case. You don't need an unblock. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's a potential solution, would prefer a topic ban from the stalking page and associated talk page as it would also remove the block message. I would of course ensure I honour this trust if it's afforded to me, and appreciate you letting me know this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support unblock let's give LFK their library card back. More people should use that tool. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Moving this here again from the archives in the hope someone is willing to make a decision and close this, thanks. LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've left a request at WP:ANRFC. I'm involved so can't close this myself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Community 3X ban appeal from Bmona12

• Bmona12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bmona12 has submitted an appeal on their user talk of their WP:3X ban which I'm bringing here for community consideration. - Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

---

I am formally appealing my community ban. Since four years have passed since my initial infractions, and administrators have kindly restored my talk page access to allow for this review, I am presenting my final appeal here.

I was originally blocked for a mix of copyright violations, uploading unfree images, and copying text between pages without giving attribution. When User:Tamzin blocked me and asked me to explain the rules, I didn't take it seriously. I was impatient, ignored the questions, and just spammed basic "I promise to do better" messages.

To make things worse, I aggressively tried to bypass the block by making multiple secondary accounts out of sheer frustration. I want to be entirely transparent: over the course of 2023, I created and edited using the sockpuppet accounts User:Jodibetterton12345, User:Billymonahan123, User:Monahana123, and User:CaptainMohando1, as well as logging out to edit from my provider's 114.75.144.0/20 IP range. It was a toxic, immature way to handle the situation, and I understand completely why the community placed a full ban on me under WP:3X.

I have spent the last few years completely away from the site, and I realize now how much cleanup work my behavior caused for editors like User:BattleshipMan and the clerks who had to log my SPI. I want to properly answer the policy questions that User:Tamzin originally laid out for me, to prove that I finally understand what I did wrong:

1. Copying from other websites: It is never okay to copy and paste text directly from external sites like Fandom wikis, DeviantArt, or fan blogs. Wikipedia requires everything to be written completely in my own words based on independent, reliable sources.

2. Copying within Wikipedia: If I copy text from one Wikipedia article or draft to another, I have to explicitly credit the original page in my edit summary to comply with the Creative Commons license.

3. Using non-free images: Copyrighted images can only be uploaded if they are absolutely necessary for the reader to understand an article, and only if a free alternative doesn't exist. They require a specific fair-use rationale. I now recognize that decorative images cannot be uploaded to sandboxes or drafts, and every single file must strictly meet all 10 core non-free content criteria.

I haven't made a single account or tried to sneak back onto the site since my community ban. I genuinely miss contributing to articles on animation and film. If you are willing to give me a second chance, I am completely fine with strict restrictions to ensure I am editing constructively, including a clean-start agreement, a long probation period, or close mentor supervision over my article contributions and any potential media uploads. Thank you for your time and for reviewing an old case.

---

I have added links to the usernames given and made no other alterations. Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bmona12: Thank you for your belated answers to my questions from 2022. Might I ask, did you use any kind of large language model (e.g. ChatGPT) to write your answers? Statements like Wikipedia requires everything to be written completely in my own words based on independent, reliable sources are something we see a lot in AI-written unblock requests, where they make an overly broad statement about policy (requires everything; copying verbatim from other sources is actually sometimes allowed) and then mention policies that aren't related to the block (based on independent, reliable sources). I don't mean this as a "gotcha" question; your primary time editing was before we banned the use of AI in discussions, so if you did use AI, I see that as an honest mistake, and not something that on its own would keep me from supporting an unblock. But if you did, I'd appreciate if you could answer again in your own words, because really the crux of this unblock request is whether you, as an individual, understand our copyright rules. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Response from Bmona on their talk:

Did I used an large language model to write my request? No. I am 100% against AI, why would I use it? It uses a lot of water and ram. If an end of the world ever happens, (Which I believe will never happens) AI would easily be the number one reason for it in my books.

I'm neutral at this time, just conveying the reply. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Bmona12 has displayed immature behavior back then and I had my reasons for having him block on those sock accounts that he used back then. Also, if you ask me, I am strongly against the use of AI for one, they are not trustworthy enough and secondly, those AI data centers affect the environment. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not inclined to read some overly broad and perhaps unnuanced understandings of policy or copyright law as necessarily being a result of LLM use. I can also see why sources would come up in the question on copying, especially as it appears a few drafts were rejected due to a lack of sourcing. Courtesy link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmona12/Archive. If unblocked, I would caution against uploading media until there is a bit more experience and a firmer grasp on related policy. Given the previous rejected AfC drafts, I would also softly recommend a bit of time working on existing articles before creating new ones. CMD (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Requesting more involvement This unban request has gotten minimal attention. Hoping to get more involvement.--v/r - TP 21:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support- while this appeal does appear polished by AI, it contains information about Bmona12's ban that an AI would be unable to know, leading me to believe that this appeal was in fact human-written. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - That user did some immature actions in the past and use sock accounts to evade bans. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support- In my opinion, this appeal should be considered. The fact that the editor recognizes the problems that resulted in the ban and then addresses them, also accepts full responsibility for their support 'sockpuppetry' activities, should be taken into consideration. Four years have passed and the user has accepted their ban which shows clearly that the user understands the relevant policies. Meanwhile, they should avoid uploading non-free media. It gives them the opportunity to rebuild trust through constructive editing.Farhanansari1994 (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Block

Block evasion is block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was blocked on my temporary account ~2026-39985-73.

The events that lead to my block are as follows:

1. User:Muboshgu reverts my edit on Julian Assange. The revert made sense (I somehow didn't realise that succession boxes needed actual successors or predecessors) but what annoyed me about it though was how Muboshgu referred to it as a "waste of space". (Special:Diff/1364612943)
2. Out of anger I made a message on Muboshgu's talk page in which I told them to block themself and I falsely accused them of being a racist. (Special:Diff/1364632665)
3. User:Lynch44 then reverted my unconstructive edit on the talk page and left a message on my talk page telling me not to vandalise again. I then responded to this message by denying the fact that the edit was unconstructive and falsely accussed Lynch44 of having a disruptive username. (Special:Diff/1364632728)
4. User:Bishonen then blocked me indefinitely. (Special:Diff/1364634880)

I agree that my behaviour was completely unconstructive and terrible but I personally think the indefinite block was harsh. I think it would've made more sense to only block me for a few days or a week. Also I don't like that I was accused of being "not here to build an encyclopedia" since I had made plenty of productive edits and had created an accepted draft article. ~2026-40340-20 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Indef is appropriate for that kind of behavior. Indefinite is not infinite, and can be removed if a convincing appeal is made. You haven't managed to convince me yet that you won't offend that way again, you are more concerned with arguing about the term of the block and complaining about Bishonen. Acroterion (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about the block. I just personally wanted to state my opinion on it. If Wikipedia admins believe an indefinite block is appropriate to give me then I will listen to them and not edit Wikipedia anymore. ~2026-40340-20 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Indefs can be appealed, but they should address your conduct, and only that. Acroterion (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Well then my Wikipedia journey is over. I have attempted many times over the years to help build this encyclopaedia yet every time I am battered for not knowing about obscure guidelines and rules.

Not only that but Wikipedia has showed that it thinks that admins can get away with pretty much anything they want.

But as I clearly cannot enjoy building this encyclopaedia, I shall no longer bother. If you enjoy editing this encyclopaedia then I'm happy for you and wish you the best of luck. Anyway, bye! ~2026-40340-20 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If you got that perturbed over my use of the words "waste of space", it's probably better that you don't try to take part in a project that requires collaboration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

CBAN appeal from Bes2224

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am copying over Bes2224's unblock appeal for the community's consideration. It was drafted using the unblock wizard:

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

In my own words: “Being a jerk” is a fair description. I could use a harsher termer, but I'll leave it there

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

1. Editing: I need to become less complacent with the idea of launching live pages with the expectation that others will come along and improve the article. I'm used to working with a certain community on here, and that's been the case in that community, but I need to look at Wikipedia through a different lens. I also need to look at new tools here. I found some very useful ones that didn't exist in my more active days.
2. My attitude: I need to review current policy better. I feel that the community standard and policy have changed since I first became active here, and I became to complacent is the understanding I had. I think I forgot one of my own personal rules "Never stop learning."

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

Some of my actions were viewed as bad-faith/intentionally disruptive, but most were honest attempts to follow policy the way I understood it, address concerns as it related to the article, and improve the article. Blue Sonnet’s feedback on a post I made helped me understand why some of my actions appeared to be in bad-faith, and I am appreciative of the feedback. My multiple requests for an AI detection-tool were good-faith request. I was under the impression editors were using something similar to a plagiarism checker that could identify questionable text. I wanted to use it to quell any current concerns, and to prevent any future disputes. I disclosed my AI use early and didn't intentionally misrepresent or lie about it. I believe much of that dispute was hindered by miscommunication, which my poor conduct certainly did not help. I still disagree with how my 31-hour block appeal was decided because I believe an admin should know when they are involved editor, and know to they should not make the decision. However, if my editor privileges are restored, I will not pursue anything further relating to this concern. This does not excuse my later conduct, but I believe this is an important factor in making any appeal decision (regardless if that fact is used in my favor or against me). If restored to editor status, I may look into how to be a (constructive) advocate for policy review and change, not just in this area, but across Wikipedia as a whole. Bes2224 (talk) 6:28 pm, 12 July 2026

For the ANI discussion the precipitated the block, see here. Courtesy ping to blocking admin The Bushranger _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• The fact there are still WP:NOTTHEM issues makes me frown somewhat, unfortunately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Insistent LLM use and an apparent inability to understand or conform to relevant guidelines was an issue of focus at the ANI thread, yet that appears to have gone unaddressed. I would like to hear Bes2224's current understanding of Wikipedia's LLM policies and guidelines, and how those policies and guidelines apply to their edits.

I am also unimpressed with the clear tinges of WP:NOTTHEM present in their request, especially when considering their prior (LLM-assisted) finger pointing at ANI. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Despite being called out on their gross incivility, they doubled down on it just over a week ago, telling the Wikipedia community "Yall are clowns. Yall must get paid real well. DELETE MY ACCOUNT. Get your rocks off nerds" [6]. I see no compelling reason to unblock this individual. They obviously have immense talent which will be of great use...outside of Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: despite having had NOLLM explained to the multiple times, they are still wikilawyering about it and coming up with exemptions. Without a credible promise to not use LLMs, I see no compelling reason to give this person access to article space again. The incivility, and the subsequent doubling down, and the NOTTEM issues don't help either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the comment Hammersoft has linked, from just 2 days before this request, definitely not a good indicator that they have reformed. jolielover♥talk 20:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: I might believe a change of heart after a six-month layoff. I'm less inclined to think that they had a sudden 48-hour epiphany about a community they showed some pretty serious disdain toward. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting close - close request unanswered for over 3 months

A close request about this split request has been open for over 94 days. If the close is approved, a new article, Trump and authoritarianism, will be created. I am interesting in working on the article, but because no one has answered the close request, I am unable to do so. This is also a current topic, and while there is WP:NODEADLINE, many related pages in the Trump 2 ecosystem will be reorganized if this split is approved (Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar, Democratic backsliding in the United States, and Second presidency of Donald Trump#Authoritarianism), and I'd like to get along with reorganizing this ecosystem sooner rather than later so that the amount of work needed to reorganize is minimized (if we wait longer, more content will be added to these pages which will make the reorganization process more difficult). Therefore, in the interest of avoiding WP:CANVASSING, I am leaving a message here in the hopes an admin will expedite the close process and do it themselves. Thank you. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Done as a nac, no admin tools needed. Levivich (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Just finished reading your summary, I appreciate the amount of detail you put into it and I think you summarized the consensus well. Thanks again! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:1E 2259+586

What happened here? It was moved back to draftspace, then both pages were speedy deleted per G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Look at the history for Draft:1E 2259+58.6 and I think you'll see what led up to that. The draftification of that article left behind a trail of redirects (since it was moved first then draftified) and those redirects were removed per G8 because of the draftification. The redirect from Draft:1E 2259+586 is kind of a weird artifact of the whole thing and not of any real importance.

I guess. This is what it looks like to me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Then where did the original page history end up? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

58.6, as rsjaffe said. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I have created a redirect at the draft-namespace title, and upon launch its mainspace counterpart will be created as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, Draft:1E 2259+586 was accepted by AfC and moved to 1E 2259+586 leaving a redirect at Draft:1E 2259+586. 1E 2259+586 then was moved to 1E 2259+58.6 as a failed draftify and rename in one as they did not change the namespace. 1E 2259+58.6 was deleted as R2 as it now redirected from main-space to draft. I had missed the odd intermediate move, so then someone else tagged the original 1E 2259+586 for G8 as it was then an invalid redirect to the now non-existent 1E 2259+58.6. The original redirect Draft:1E 2259+586 got deleted by Liz as a G8 as it was a redirect pointing to the now deleted 1E 2259+586. A little messy but you can follow the path from any starting point by looking at the move logs in the histories of the pages. So as the others have said it is now at Draft:1E 2259+58.6. Both "1E 2259+58.6" and "1E 2259+586" are used, but "1E 2259+586" seams more common so not sure why it was renamed. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It is the name format used in the SIMBAD entry (which is actually under a different catalog name). There is an implicit decimal point if declination is specified with 3 digits in a sky-coordinate name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ekos and Frank Graves Conflict of Interest

User:Jiffles1 removed critical content, posted flattering biography and likely promotional content on pages Ekos Research Associates and Frank Graves (pollster). User had already been notified multiple times, but no corrective action was taken. ~2026-40534-37 (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest issues are discussed at WP:COIN. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Questionable user activity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure if it is right to note here, but in any way it is relatively important: user ~2026-28786-09 makes a lot of questionable, aggressive, toxic and partially off-topic comments on the Cumbric talk page, dedicated to historical and linguistic topics. They also claim questionable unapproved historical statements to be the only correct and "long-proven" options, without providing any relevant scientific sources, like here or here. Although it cannot be considered explicitly harmful or vandalism, the actions of the user are unambiguously disruptive for the community and any search of consensus on actually important topics. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Without any knowledge of or comment upon any dispute, the IP is a sock of indeffed User:92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ve read the sources you’re originally referencing on the article, none of the linguists claim what you’re saying they’re claiming about “Cumbric”. They all just come to the conclusion that there was (obviously) geographic variations in the Old Welsh spoken in Great Britain at the time, not that “Cumbric” was a separate language from any of the other varieties of Old Welsh spoken at the time, also called ‘Cambric’/‘Cymbric’/‘Cambrian’/‘Cumbrian’ and various other etymologically related, cognate terms in many contemporary historical documents.

So how is the Old Welsh spoken in southern Scotland at that time a separate language?

It very clearly wasn’t. ~2026-28786-09 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

YOU were also the one who started derailing the conversation, launching ad hominems and injecting ideological, puerile, emotional language and vacuous sloganeering into the discussion. Not me. I just responded.

When you are ‘ragebaited’ by someone merely pointing out historical and comparative linguistic fact, it’s because you live in a delusional fantasy world clouded by ideology and feeling.

Banning people. Censoring people. Blocking people will not stop Old Welsh from having been spoken in Scotland south of the Firth of Forth for centuries before English (not Gaelic) replaced it. It won’t stop Pictish from

having been replaced by Gaelic, then later English. It won’t stop English from having been spoken in Scotland since the 500s, regardless of what politically driven neologistic term you use to describe that English, or Welsh, or Gaelic, or Norse, or French…

Grow up. ~2026-28786-09 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The word Cumbric itself LITERALLY means Welsh, btw: “From Cumbria +‎ -ic under influence from Welsh Cymraeg (“Welsh (language)”). Doublet of Cymric.”

I despair… ~2026-28786-09 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Enough Cumbric, the problem with you is your style that is targeted at something else than what should be done on Wikipedia. I recommend you maybe seeing some policies and guidelines first... I do not think you are ragebaiting, because of how much text you write; thus this is just pure toxicity and aggression. Especially when you were already blocked from Wikipedia, you have 0 rights to defend in this situation, sadly. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Your block is for WP:NOTHERE behaviour, not your standpoint on whatever-the-bujeeziz-now above, or any content matter back then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The “whatever-the-bujeeziz-now above” is what you’re blocking me for, no? I am very confused here. What is the API about if not my discussion with the strange little individual above who posted the API notification to my page?

What exactly is difficult to understand about the above comments for you? And why are you wading into a discussion about historical languages if you understand nothing about them?

The rule you’re citing doesn’t apply to my comments at all. Everything I said on the Cumbric talkpage to this individual was completely on topic and focused on improving the quality of Wikipedia generally and more accuratelu reflecting the sources and historical comparative linguistic consensus on “Cumbric” and its status within the Old Welsh world. ~2026-28786-09 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No indeed. Per above, your wee discussion is immaterial. You forfeited the right to have one, be you right or wrong.

"this block applies to you as a person, not to this specific IP address. If you engage in the same pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing from another IP address, that IP address will also be blocked" But it's not as if you don't know this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Wee isn’t actually a Scottish word, you know. It’s from the same Proto-Germanic root as thr word weigh and has appeared in other historical varieties of English. Aye isn’t Scottish whatsoever either, same situation.

What are you talking about? I am completely lost… what exactly is the block for if not the Cumbric discussion?

I forfeited the right to have a discussion on my blocking over a discussion on the Cumbric talkpage because I had a discussion about Cumbric on the talkpage?

Is there some appeals process for this? Is this genuinely how Wikipedia operates? This is just laughable… ~2026-28786-09 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Point out people are disingenuously misrepresenting sources = Block. Point out simple facts about history and comparative linguistics = Block. Try to discuss you block = Block.

How are you not just agendapushing by this point. The individual that summoned this API repeatedly made highly emotional, politically/ideologically/nationalistic charged statements throughout that discussion.

How am I the one being unreasonable here for pointing out facts that caused them to have an emotional breakdown? ~2026-28786-09 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion, never mind the BATTLEGROUND mentality. Fences&Windows 11:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IDF members and WP:PIA

Yehudit Nessyahu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

During the War of Independence, she joined the IDF, returning to university when the war finished. I don't actually have the knowledge to know if this falls under it or not. I only ask because: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. Just want to make sure I'm not leaving something untagged if I should be tagging it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Surely, this would mean that every person who has ever served in the IDF—approximately, every natural-born citizen of Israel—would be subject to WP:PIA? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Only where their biographies intersect with conflict. Moment the user wrote out war of independence, theyd likely have been treading in the topic area. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

To split hairs, I would not consider simply saying that a subject joined the IDF to be a PIA violation, but any description of their actual military activity (or omission of important context if the subject's notability stems from their military activity) would be. In this case, using a POV name for the 1948 war is clearly crossing the line. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: I ran across the article with WP:WCW, hence needing to ask. Knowing where that line it can help me in the future. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Noting this has been deleted under G5 by @Pppery. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I presume that's the tag I should have used. Zero of the CTOPs are anywhere near my interests so I'm unaware of that sort of thing. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy close/delete?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we get a speedy on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaikh Bhikhari, please? - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 2026 Administrator Elections – RFC Phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started. There are 20 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase.

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) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

editor violating WP:CT/IMH?

see [7] by HistoricalWriting (talk · contribs) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically HW was informed they must used edit requests on articles under IMH (and SASG), but not directly (on their talk page, at least) that those requests can be only for simple, non-controversial edits. I have declined the edit request and informed them of this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Proper response when admin refuses to follow guideline in using admin tools?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, a week ago, I ran across the article Donald Stadtner, which had an WP:LLMPROD template on it. (You can see a copy of the article after my edits here from the Wayback Machine) Anyways, when I looked at the history of the article, I saw that other than the LLM using editor Hintha's initial edits, there were some major changes to the article afterwards.

Specifically, the IP editor 2601:644:8202:a80:58fb:dd1e:2c5d:5401 had rewritten the lede and the publications section, along with removing some content. Based on their edit summaries, I presume they're the subject of the article. The one part left they hadn't rewritten was a single paragraph that made up the Education and Career section. So I took it upon myself to delete that section and write a new one based on news sources I searched up about Stadtner. Which then resulted in an article with no LLM-written content left.

A couple days after that, the reviewing admin (David Eppstein) deleted the article anyways. I started a discussion with him about why that happened, specifically why he didn't follow the lede requirements of WP:LLMPROD about not deleting when there are other significant contributors (which is even more extreme in this case since all of the original LLM-written material was removed). And it...did not go well.

In short, as you can read, he not only accused me of lying about rewriting the material from scratch, he also stated that there was no real review or look at the history on his part to see if the PROD and deletion was relevant anymore because that would be a "level of detail that, if applied to all LLMPRODs, would make the entire process bog down in tedium and lack of administrator time", despite checking the article history being something that's a requirement of the LLMPROD guideline in the first place. And is even stated as the summary requirements in the general WP:PROD page for reviewing admins to ensure compliance. Otherwise literally any page could get tagged with it and if, for some reason, no one noticed in time, would result in an article deletion. Which is ridiculous (and why checking for compliance is noted in the guideline repeatedly).

Rather than noting the mistake and reversing it, David has instead engaged in a tendentious back and forth in that prior linked discussion, nitpicking about individual words in the content I wrote, among other things. I'm not really sure what the proper response is here or where I should even be taking this, hence why I'm defaulting here to AN. Silverseren^C 00:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

For those wondering, the reason why WP:LLMPRVOBJ doesn't apply here is that, similar to G5 CSD "responsibility for content" requirements, it would necessitate there to be LLM material to take responsibility for. And there isn't in this case. The content I wrote is my own, obviously, but the other rewritten content in the article was done by the IP editor and their edits apply to them. I certainly have no reason, or right really, to take responsibility for the changes they made. And, as just noted, there's no AI LLM-written material to take responsibility for in the first place, all of Hintha's material is gone. See this change comparison from right after Hintha's article creation to current. Silverseren^C 00:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified. Silverseren^C 00:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

See User talk:David Eppstein, where I have responded positively and promptly to two subsequent WP:REFUND requests. Instead, Silverseren has still refused to actually make a request for refund. They have not explained their own failure to follow procedure (as in, removing the LLMPROD when they wanted to take charge of the article). They have not adequately explained their elaboration of LLM hallucinations in place of the proper removal and sourcing of the article (the claim that the subject started as an associate professor at Texas in the same year as they completed their PhD, elaborating the LLM claim that they started that year, when none of the sources give that starting date and rank). They seem to be more interested in winning an argument, and/or forcing the addition of bureaucratic additional checks to the entire LLMPROD process that would slow the whole process to a crawl.

Given the lack of an actionable request on my talk, I think the lack of an action in response to that non-request is perfectly reasonable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm just gonna throw this out there before this turns into a sprawling mega thread: how about you just say sorry, refund the page, and we can move on? (Or just the last two, two out of three ain't bad.) Levivich (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, per your request I have undeleted Donald Stadtner. Now someone please clean it up so that it actually reflects what its sources say and makes some assertion of notability (presumably through published book reviews and WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Levivich (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you remove the LLMPROD tag? Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I wanted it to be reviewed and checked to make sure I didn't miss anything. I've had that sort of PROD re-added before when I've removed it. So I decided to improve the article and let the review happen, thinking it would be an easy check to see that the LLM content was gone (or at least that significant contributions by other editors had been made) by a glance at the history. Silverseren^C 01:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You have learned to not assume people will know what you're thinking about articles. You should have either removed the prod or left a talk page note. Also, if you wanted it refunded, you needed to directly ask for that. Fences&Windows 19:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So you don't think admins should be required to follow the PROD guidelines that specifically state that the validity of the PROD and the state of the article should be checked before deleting? REFUND shouldn't be a catch-all response for misuse of admin tools. Especially since the admins over at REFUND frequently say "But did you get the permission of the deleting admin?" despite that being irrelevant to any request. Silverseren^C 22:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think for someone nitpicking about process, you also had some lapses. So can we not close this and everyone walk away with lessons learned?--v/r - TP 23:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It's already closed, in my opinion. I'm just responding to others who commented after the fact. Silverseren^C 00:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that PRODs are a lightweight process and easy to reverse. Whether to delete is a judgement call. You deliberately left up to an admin and then when they (in your view) got it wrong you decided to argue the merits instead of just asking for a REFUND. In gaming parlance, you've chosen hard mode for some reason. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I did the thing that REFUND would have told me to do before making a request there anyways, discussed with the deleting admin. Who then accused me of lying about my editing and said they don't bother checking article histories when deleting because that would "bog down" their time. Silverseren^C 00:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

REFUND does not tell you to go to talk pages of admins, guns blazing, attacking them for supposed misconduct, demanding that they admit their wrongdoing, and escalating to drama boards when that approach yields unsatisfactory results. It tells you to ask the admin to reconsider their decision, something you have refused to do. And where do you think I said I don't bother checking article histories? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

My initial thread to you asked if you checked the history and looked at the changes made to the article. Your response, in the middle of claiming I just added to LLM-written content, stated that the process of looking at those changes was a "a level of detail that, if applied to all LLMPRODs, would make the entire process bog down in tedium and lack of administrator time", ie looking at any article changes in the history whatsoever. Any of the comparative changes made after its creation.

Furthermore, nothing in this:

Can you explain this deletion? Did you check the history of the article to see if the PROD was valid, per the lede of WP:LLMPROD? Since, if you had checked the history of the article, you would have found that there was no AI content even left in the article after Hintha's creation of it.

First, 2601:644:8202:a80:58fb:dd1e:2c5d:5401 (who appears to be the subject based on their edit summaries?) removed large chunks of the article and rewrote both the lede and the publications section, while not touching the only other section "Education and Career". I, meanwhile, made an edit replacing that section with an entirely newly written version and with 3 added references. So, even without the removal of all AI content, that alone would have also been a significant contribution and thus have made the PROD invalid, per WP:LLMPROD.

If you (or anyone else) wants to view the article, you can do so here on the Wayback Machine. You can also view the history here on the same. You can also view an edit comparison between right after Hintha's edits to the current version here. I had made sure all of that was archived on the Wayback Machine two days ago.

Was me going in "guns blazing". It was me asking a query and then giving an explanation of the article history to help explain why I had that query in the first place. It was your accusatory response that escalated the discussion. Silverseren^C 00:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Let me correct a misunderstanding. A brief scan of the article history is not what I was referring to by "a level of detail that would bog down the process". I meant a line-by-line analysis of the article content, at the level of say a Good Article source-integrity check. It is not reasonable to expect admins to perform that sort of analysis, as your discussion above suggests that you expected to happen after your deliberate non-removal of the llmprod.

Since you have still not asked about my process and continued to attack my integrity based on unfounded assumptions about what my process has been, I will note that my process for these proposals has consisted of quick scans of the article history, talk (when it exists), and the discussion of LLM usage (to verify that there is consensus that there was a problem with LLM usage). In this particular case, the history scan missed your single edit rewriting the article. That was a mistake, and I'm sorry for the oversight, but your continued accusations of misconduct, misuse of tools, and improper process are grossly inappropriate.

Incidentally, there is (and often is) a large backlog at Category:Expired proposed deletions of AI-generated content. For obvious reasons I do not wish to participate while this discussion is still live, but I invite others to step in. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

A brief scan of the article is all that was required, which has been my point. More specifically, just looking at the comparative from after the offending editor's edits/creation to current edit at that time. Since that's an easy and straightforward check to see if significant contributions from any other editors has been made. It takes less than 10 seconds to pull that up and scroll through it to check if the body text has been altered, no line-by-line analysis required. Why is that expectation unreasonable for LLMPROD reviewal?

Especially when, in this case, it's not like my changes were the only ones. The IP editor's changes alone were enough evidence of a significant alteration.

My accusation is of you not doing the most basic, simplest of checks when using your tools. And then, when asked about a usage of them, you suddenly claiming that the other editor is lying and promoting LLM text. Your responses on your talk discussion page were extremely inflammatory, combined with also an inability to read the references you were using in your own accusations.

If your immediate response to any form of questioning of an edit you've made is to then say the other person is lying, rather than considering that maybe, perhaps, you made an error that is easily correctable without any further discussion required, then that does lead to questioning of your capacity to appropriately conduct yourself in general. The very fact that this entire discussion and even the rest of your talk page discussion could have been avoided by you simply saying "Oh, I missed that, you're right" is the ridiculous part and apologizing at this juncture just doesn't seem genuine considering everything prior (and considering the apology is immediately followed with an attempted reversal of accusation). Silverseren^C 01:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've had that sort of PROD re-added before when I've removed it. Regular PRODs can not be re-added once contested by removal of the prod template. Is LLMPROD different in this way? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, I was also curious and found this in footnote 5 of WP:LLMPROD: An article can be LLMPRODed multiple times, contrary to the standard WP:PROD process wherein articles can only be PRODed once. The note has been there from near the start of the page's existence, so it's had time to be challenged. Meadowlark (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

TIL, thank you! I looked over the page but missed that. Maybe I need glasses. Or more coffee. Definitely more coffee. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, it took me a while too! I'll get you a coffee while I arrange some tea for me, give us both a chance to get the brains going. Meadowlark (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This whole thing is bizarre. Silver seren found an LLM-written article, says they rewrote it, and yet left the tag because they wanted a review. An admin comes to the article and deletes it. Silver seren then blasts the admin for coming to the wrong decision, which they think is obvious. Apparently, Silver seren in fact did not want a review. So, next, the admin says something that could be interpreted as preferring speed over accuracy. This sets off Silver seren enough to accuse him about not doing any review at all. This seems to be the start of an Olympic level event in dramamongering. Instead of someone stepping back and realizing that maybe the other person has a point, insults and bad faith accusations start flying. Despite the main issue being resolved (the article was undeleted), and neither person having an emotional attachment to the article subject, both editors are still locked into some kind of bloodsport at a drama board. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at RFPP

Of about twenty pages. Entreating all procrastinating comers. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I understand why I was blocked, and I accept responsibility for my actions. I used a large language model (LLM) to assist with my Wikipedia editing. At the time, I underestimated how incompatible that was with Wikipedia's expectations regarding editor responsibility, accuracy, sourcing, and the need for contributors to personally verify and understand every edit they publish. Regardless of my intentions, using AI in that manner was a mistake, and I recognize that I alone am responsible for the edits made under my account. Since being blocked, I have taken time to reflect on what went wrong and to better understand Wikipedia's policies and community standards. I now appreciate that AI-generated content can introduce factual errors, unsourced claims, and other issues that place an unnecessary burden on other editors. I understand that every edit must be based on reliable sources, carefully reviewed, and represent my own judgment as an editor. If I am given another opportunity to contribute, I will not use LLMs or other generative AI tools to write, draft, or expand Wikipedia content. I will make all edits myself, ensure that every contribution is supported by reliable sources with appropriate inline citations, and seek guidance through talk pages whenever I am uncertain. Rebuilding trust will take time, and I am prepared to do that through careful, policy-compliant editing. I sincerely apologize for my poor judgment and for the additional work my actions may have caused other volunteers. I respectfully ask that you consider giving me a second chance. If unblocked, I intend to demonstrate through my future conduct that I have learned from this experience and can contribute constructively while fully adhering to Wikipedia's policies and expectations. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. Wiki writes AP (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restoring user rights for unvanished editors

An editor at WP:PERM/EC is requesting the return of XC after apparently being unvanished. Not sure what we do in these sorts of cases. My understanding was that vanishing is permanent. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User statement: Hi there, yes it appears I wasn't ever globally locked as part of the original vanish. Current intent is to re-establish profile/perms/talk space and continue editing, not on a fresh profile if able. Happy to take any Q's via here/enwiki Discord — IVORK _Talk 04:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Although WP:VANISH says that vanishing is permanent, this person has never been blocked, and another admin did the unvanishing on July 21. No reason not to give back extended confirmed, I think. What should not be allowed is continued editing under the vanished identity, which I believe has not occurred. User:IVORK had 19,000 edits when they were last active and seem to have done good work. If they do end up being fully reinstated under their original account name, I suggest they restore the links to their talk archives. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that "unvanishing" is even a thing (or possible). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 10:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Typically it is not possible; however, this "vanish" was technically incorrectly performed as it was requested as a regular rename; which meant the account was not locked and did not have its email stripped from it, so could still be used. CoconutOctopus talk 11:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I've only seen it done when the VANISH was used to evade scrutiny, and the user was found to have come back under a different username. This seems to have been a user in good standing, who seemingly regretted having vanished and wanted to come back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. I can't think of a situation where we wouldn't permit someone-in-good-standing to return. If you vanish in such circumstances, we wouldn't mind if you came back with a new username, and since unvanishing wasn't impossible, it would have been absurd for us not to grant the request. Curious, do the developers generally remove an account's email address when it gets vanished, or is that normally done by the user in question? I assume unlocking isn't particularly difficult. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's an automated removal done when a vanish request is approved by a renamer or steward. CoconutOctopus talk 06:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Any idea why that didn't happen this time? Is it done by ticking a little box, and someone apparently forgot to tick it? Not trying to complain; I just don't understand the process. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

So, basically, the "vanish" and "rename" processes, whilst handled at the same place, are separate things. This was never a real vanish request, but instead the user requested renaming to a rough approximation of a vanished username. They were renamed, but still totally free to edit. CoconutOctopus talk 08:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I restored the user page. We can act on WP:AGF and reinstate extended confirmed, or we could wait for bit to see what editing takes place, to verify if this come back is going to be good before granting page-mover and the other permissions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I've restored IVORK's extended confirmed permission, since he met the thresholds to be granted it automatically and it wasn't revoked for cause. I haven't restored any other permissions, and IVORK hasn't requested them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Ultimately I was going to go through and reapply for page mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker as per what was removed, but if you're able to do all at once, that'd be best — IVORK _Talk 07:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've restored your PCR and rollback, since the counter-vandalism you've been doing after your return looks good to me. The other permissions (which would have been revoked for inactivity even without the vanishing) require that the holder have a somewhat tighter grasp on community and editorial norms, which have changed non-trivially over the last four years. I don't like being bureaucratic about these things, but I think it would be best for you to get settled in and re-request those at PERM when you have a more recent track record that administrators can evaluate. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• The current vanishing model is designed to be one-way and includes account locking and purging of credential stores, the old process was just a manual rename. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect creation

Wanted to create a redirect from Ghazwa-e-Hind (conspiracy theory) to Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India. And Ghazwa-e-Hind (prophecy)/Ghazwa-e-Hind (hadith) to Indian reunification#Religious groups. "Hind" is caught in an edit filter.

These are two distinct concepts, cf. wikt:Ghazwa-e-Hind.

Turned Ghazwa-e-Hind into a dab per the page history (unrelated to the Hindu nationalist conspiracy theory of demographic change), after coming across this prodded article Prophecy of the conquest of India at User talk:Ahammed Saad (which I've distinctly rd'd). Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Regarding this. Please see the above. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Can you please explain this revert [8]. The recent redirect conversion isn't correct per the page's history. We're dealing with distinct things here.

I was confused by the target after recently searching for this phrase at enwiki (coming across it at a userpage cf. above), as other mentions of it on enwiki related to sense 1 here wikt:Ghazwa-e-Hind.

Am I missing something at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for this? Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

These two senses are certainly related to each other and one is clearly derivative of the other. Better served with a hatnote than a crappy disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem would be with deciding the primary rd target (which per the page history would be the prophecy).

The previous rd target to Muslim nationalism in South Asia was based on discussions here Talk:Ghazwa-e-Hind. Which could be restored as such but fails a target mention now.

I'll further invite PulauKakatua19 for comments, who created the wikt entry which I primarily based the dab rationale on.

Nonetheless, I'll add the hatnote for the timebeing. @Bkonrad: Can you also look into the redirects being caught in the filters. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless the I would think the prophecy would be the primary topic. On the surface, it would seem the content currently at Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India has the most substance. Indian reunification barely mentions the term. As for last point, I'm not sure what you mean by redirects being caught in the filters. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Though I would note that the conspiracy theory section is entirely unsourced. I've tagged it.

By rds caught in filters I meant the initial reason for opening this thread:

"Wanted to create a redirect from Ghazwa-e-Hind (conspiracy theory) to Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India. And Ghazwa-e-Hind (prophecy) and Ghazwa-e-Hind (hadith) to Indian reunification#Religious groups. "Hind" is caught in an edit filter." Gotitbro (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, those are result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6. Seems the topic is contentious for some. I don't work with edit filters much, so I can't really help there. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: I see. But can a sysop not create an rd/article regardless of title filters? I came here because the filter notice linked AN as the venue when tring to create these.

Regardless, thanks for the help so far. Hope someone can handle this. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Garfield Sobers#Requested move 17 July 2026

Could an administrator please look at this RM, and decide if it can be closed one way or the other. There have been two attempted relists which did not comply with WP:RMRELIST. Thanks, Jack (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Vanish & return?

Asking for advice. When a user, who is here solely to write about a couple of related subjects in which they have a likely COI, racks up several warnings, then changes username, and soon after that requests and is granted courtesy vanishing... and a week later a new user appears and picks up the baton, what do we do? If, as I strongly suspect, it is the same user returning with a new account, that's clearly against the spirit of WP:VANISH, but is it ipso facto blockable? And if so, should I ask CU to confirm the connection, or is behavioural evidence enough?

And on a related but separate point, I assume I shouldn't ask the user whether the vanished account was theirs, when their earlier username was almost certainly their IRL name, because that would be outing – right? Should I just send this to COIVRT? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I would file at SPI, present the behavioral evidence, and ask for a CU. Worst-case scenario is that the clerk doesn't endorse the CU check and that the reviewing admin finds the behavioral evidence unconvincing. A sockpuppet positive would render worrying about the COI largely moot and is a pretty straightforward affair, and a negative sockpuppet finding would not prevent you from then following up on potential COIVRT.

I wouldn't engage with a potential sockpuppet with questions about their identity, nor would I inform them that I had opened an investigation. In fact, we are specifically discouraged from doing so in the instructions at the investigations page. Grandpallama (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, I don't feel the need to convince another admin to block (without CU); I'm not involved, so am able to block myself.

And by taking this to SPI, I would have to publicly connect the current username to the pre-vanished one, which still gives me concern about outing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think COIVRT is the correct call in a situation such as this. CoconutOctopus talk 09:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No, vanishing is not a concern in the context of OUTING. OUTING is strictly: can you connect the user account to an external source? If you can, don't do so onwiki. By contrast, if you can connect account A to account B strictly on behavior, you are free to do so. This is bread and butter of SPI.

Yes, VANISH is quite clear that returning to the area someone previously edited in under a different guise is not granted any of the protections in it, and yes, it can result in a block for the account (which is, the keywords, evading scrutiny when the first account "racks up several warnings", as you say).

Now, you can choose to be more sensitive in some ways, like emailing a trusted SPI admin about the connection you've observed (I'll volunteer Asilvering ;) and letting them take a shot at taking care of the issue. Izno (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ha, good of you to volunteer... another. :)

So even if, in this case, the user has changed usernames to hide their real name, I wouldn't be outing them by pointing out the connection? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's part of the record in the move log. You'll find plenty of users that have been renamed. Look for User:Some editor moved page User:Bad person to User:Renamed user c2381aff64a7c34bbdfdb430664311d4 or something like that. Now if you should point that out is different but it's available to all, don't know about TAs though. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that if an editor uses courtesy vanishing to evade scrutiny and gets caught like this, in many cases the courtsey vanishing will be reverted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia biased on articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is a list of articles and what I discovered from them (from the editors, down to the article itself)

Isolog schools: this article has only one reference and it was put on stay, some of the context might not even be true (no adequate referencing)

Masayuki Kojima: never even has a reference.

Hairbyhairboy: sounds so promotional, someone nominated it for deletion, but it was scraped- guess that person who nominated it didn’t know how to be outspoken and defensive or felt skeptical on how to bring her points well (I’ve come across lists of corrupt journalists like Shola Shojobi in the https://independent.ng/hairbyhairboy-collaborates-with-peller-jarvis-on-digital-content-projects/ , the person in the article never collaborated with him, if he even did, not only one newspaper will record it, look at the vanguard source and look at the little mentions in other sources, drafted scheme from the start to make a Wikipedia article lol.

X-Dynasty: a nominator claimed the article is promotional, will the person in which that article is written about want to pay the editor for that image tarnishing edit, like look at the article itself and how it was referenced (I think that should not be the issue obviously-and again an article is subjective to stay if it has at least 3 well sourced references) though it might be a little tough to know if the guy is alive or up to anything, but hopefully since he’s has created an impact and it’s been reported by the media, he’ll still be on radar, his death or any other serious issue can be reported again. SEE article via Pastel Ghost

Kiriku: needs to be heavily compressed, some things said there are not reliable. Koladayo Davids (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 09:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing you need to be careful of with Nigerian subjects is that news orgs there are quite happy to run advertorials or sponsored content. Those "sources" are easy to find and easy to use when you're writing an article, but they don't count towards notability at all. They're fairly easy to spot as they basically read like an advertisement for the subject. This one (from X-Dynasty, who I don't think is notable) is typical. There are also a number on Hairbyhairboy, I note. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think so, for X-Dynasty, this one is clearly looking like an interview, This one, made it glaring he had independent coverage (look at the article itself and the referencing), since it’s blank maybe due to site error. I personally don’t see any issue with that article tbh. Koladayo Davids (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the first one has quotes from him (such articles often do) but sentences like "Today, his streams are more than just entertainment—they are lifelines for a generation learning to navigate pain in a digital world" are a giveaway, as is the "Featured" byline at the top of the page. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry my bad, ion think it was in an interview format per say, I think it was mixture of quotes from him and how he influenced people with ‘numb’, I don’t think there was a back to back question and answer there. Unlike quick daily news updates, a featured piece kinda looks closely at a person, trend, or major issue with more detail and background.(pardon me for not doing my research well earlier)- he still meets notability, the words in "Today, his streams are more than just entertainment—they are lifelines for a generation learning to navigate pain in a digital world were not sugarcoated. Koladayo Davids (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

As per Hairbyhairboy, something’s a whole lot fishy. I wish my perception should be cross-checked on that article and required steps taken. I have a full list of why the subject in that article is not notable. Koladayo Davids (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia biased on some articles?

• On American articles related to politics or caught in the culture war: Wikipedia is user-generated content, and Americans have increasingly strident opinions as they march in the culture war. It is not hard for others to get caught up in this fervor, too.
• On American media articles: many Americans have strongly held opinions that they are quite eager to share with the world ("best ever!" or "worst ever!"). This is reinforced by bombastic American media itself and its equally bombastic advertising.
• On European content: English is just one language among many in Europe, and some of the Europeans who might recognize and challenge POV-pushing in these articles are editing versions of Wikipedia in their native language instead.
• On Asian media: on an Anglophone website, anyone who engages with this content is likely a super-fan, leading to occasionally ridiculous articles.
• On East Asian politics: this is a highly contentious topic in much of the Western world, and a Western perspective will likely be strongly enforced.
• On content from the "Global South": Americans and Europeans are quite unlikely to engage with this content, giving free rein to whomever wants to write it, no matter how spammy or opinionated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @NinjaRobotPirate, for your time taken to outline it out Koladayo Davids (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NomanPK44 ban appeal

NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copied from User talk:NomanPK44#Indefinite block:

I am appealing my community ban under WP:3X and requesting consideration for an unban per WP:UNBAN / WP:SO. I accept the responsibility of what I did. I was originally topic-banned from the WP:ARBIPA area for disruptive editing and POV-pushing, I violated that ban, and after being blocked I evaded the block repeatedly using approximately 5–7 sockpuppet accounts. When that stopped working I continued evading the block through IP editing. I also want to directly address my May 2024 appeal, which was declined because I had claimed 1.5 years of no editing that was not accurate. That claim was wrong and I regret making it, I understand it damaged my credibility and gave the reviewing admin good reason to distrust anything else I said. I'm not going to repeat that mistake here. To the best of my memory my last IP edit was around mid-February 2024. I don't remember the exact date since it has been quite a while but I am sure that after that I did not engage in any editing, sockpuppetry or IP. I understand why this happened. I have had a long time away from this site to recognize that this was the wrong response. If unbanned I do not expect or ask for the ARBIPA topic ban to be lifted. I am willing to continue observing it and I'm open to any additional restrictions or what the community feels is appropriate to confirm I can edit constructively before any broader trust is restored. NomanPK44 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a complete topic ban from WP:CT/SA. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Robloxguest3

Disruptive page move closed. See on their talk page. Thank you. Henrydat (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The user is very disruptive to me. Also, the user undone a close i've done (which I did properly). This user is projecting. Robloxguest3 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, and am not the user referred to here, but in possible related data I just asked Robloxguest3 to reopen a page move and let an administrator decide it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Me, too. I will waste the time if I do that. Henrydat (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)